'Single Payer' is stupid.

Why on earth use this term with it's Orwellian overtones for Universal Public Health Insurance. In 1947, in both the UK and US. the term was National Health Insurance or National Insurance.

Medicare for all, Universal Public Insurance - whats wrong with that? Seems a lot more palatable to me than Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Zahler.

Like the "Secure Managed Enhanced Governmental Medical Act"?

:P

:D

"Idiots Guide to Lower Outlays Overall", or "Good Outcomes Developed Saves Lives And Watches Services" you know something kevetchy!!!

Or, "We're covered by our IGLOO".

So much better than SMEGMA.

It was just a work in progress.

:evilgrin:

BHIM

voters, at least, does not communicate precisely what it is people are advocating.

That alone is not going to make our side lose the argument, but it should be a reminder for future disputes that we need to keep our vocabulary accessible to a typical voter, rather than talk in esoteric terms that may sound pretty but don't make sense.

Rather than the hassle of having hospitals and doctors need to submit claims to 15 different insurance companies, each with slightly different regulations.

Right now we have a MULTIPLE-PAYER system. Different forms and regulations and policies to handle with each group of patients. Different doctors included or excluded from their HMO networks. Etc.

Single payer fits the original ideas I heard about health insurance decades ago-- if everyone is in and noone is excluded, the premiums for the less needy balance out the cost of the most needy. Then when those less needy get older and need more care, the younger people's premiums cover their costs, etc.

But over the years, with health insurance being a for-profit industry, cherry picking became more and more intense. And policies for businesses charged more and more for older workers, thus adding in a further layer of age discrimination into the employment marketplace too.

Take out the non-productive gate keepers whose job is denying care to protect profits for the rich few.

Call it "Medical Care"

the money goes as tax into general revenue, and health funding is discretionary federal spending. That is the worst model that could be chosen. Even having a Social Security pot, can't keep politicians muddy paws away from it.

You have completely missed the point on the difference between universal health insurance and single payer.

Single-payer (emphasis "PAYER") refers in a health care system to who is paying for the health care, rather than the delivery. Single-payer health care allows private doctors and clinics (who enroll and charge according to the negotiated rates) to charge their services to the single-paying insurance entity. It allows all people to be universally covered without having the government involved in micro-managing each and every clinic and shaping all innovations.

But hey, the semantics are confusing and not strictly applied.

That is exactly what single-payer is referring to. A SINGLE public-owned health insurance company who PAYS for services of physicians enrolled in their program. Hence the term, "single-payer".

Its not just a matter of semantics. Universal "Medical Care" (without insurance) refers to a radically different system that would be impossibly implausible to implement in the US overnight.

The Canadian system has doctors in private practice getting paid by the government, sort of the way Medicare operated in its purest form, before the intrusion of private HMOs.

In the British National Health Service, most doctors are salaried government employees. There's a parallel private sector as well.

The salary system has its advantages, in that doctors don't make extra money by scheduling patients in 15-minute intervals and rushing them through, and they also don't make extra money by ordering and charging for unnecessary tests.

while they sigh, "Eh...what?"

commercial from Hillary's days. Fear of being labeled 'socialized medicine'. You know what people - voters are past that.

That is what I would call it.

And the bottom line is what drives most politics in America (hence, its relevant).

Having a "single payer" to negotiate drug prices, reduce overhead, set finite costs for services, etc, makes sense to many, being that we are talking in the context of costs and money.

Medicare for all? That should like communism. That sounds like Welfare. :)

Wrong analogy. Try again.

By many of the same you are trying to impress with your rebranding. Of course, many people also think Jesus is their best imaginary friend.

Fuck it already though. People just need to pick a term, and argue about it based on its merits, rather than some flashy name.

Its called Medicare here. I have a CareCard. Its not equated to welfare whatsoever.

But Ive logged 3 decades in the US, and the thinking by (some) liberals and (most) conservatives about this issue is fundamentally different (anecdotally).

welfare for the industry who pockets the money and don't pay much into actual health care.

Much of the great corporate economic system has welfare elements these days.

But just wait until the "liberals" get around to mandating you pay into that private insurance! Who knows, but it seems likely this will happen.

insurance. It's the bought and paid for by the industry DLCers, who should go form their own money party as far as I'm concerned.

The health care and insurance industries have already propagandized as "bad" National Health Care, National Health Insurance, Medicare for All, Universal Health Care, Single Payer Health Care and so on. They will do the same no matter what we brand it.

:)

Its clearly national public insurance that "single-payer" refers to, EXCEPT, its important that its a SINGLE national public insurance company (and it doesn't compete against private market companies). Therefore, the term "single" has some importance.

But hell, Ill let someone else pick the name now that "single-payer" is "stupid". Ill argue on its merits. Beyond a doubt, I don't think I couldn't convince anyone besides an Ayn Randian of its benefits and sense.

So yes, they do pay into the system.
Medicare and Social Security are only payroll taxes so that people don't feel like they're accepting welfare. No one is "paying into" anything.

However, the analogy the OP was using wasn't appropriate for his POV and I was trying to get him to reasoning out what he was trying to say.

I was talking about how idiots (and other Americans alike) will perceive the term Medicare. I wasn't equating Medicare to welfare.

That's the failure of the left. Its a fucking joke for people to expect Obama to push single payer on the public when the left hasn't even done enough work to educate people about what it is, much less build wide support for it. Expecting Obama to do it all for us is a cop-out. Organize.

here on the internet, or like in my case, with the doctor I work for and the patient's we see. But even the organized single payer advocates and activists can't compete with the big bucks the industry puts into advertising and into campaign contributions to buy our politicians. Read this post I put up this morning and you will know why.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5717148&mesg_id=5717148

which is efficiently allocate scarce health care dollars for basic benefits from a single set of sources- rather than the fragmented and dysfunctional mess hat the US currently has.

And BTW: the British NHS is SOCIALIZED medicine, whereas single payer is not.