Let's all speak the same language, shall we?

Universal Healthcare, Single Payer Healthcare, Public Option, et al......are all dizzying terms that some of us know well, some of us "think we know what it means, but truly DON't".

I'm hoping suggesting that someone(s) define those terms in an easily (e-mailable?) form/way....so that we, Americans can become more educated/informed and 'speak the same language'/know what we support/don't support.

Hope that makes sense.

Looking forward to clear/correct definitions that can be passed along to others.

With prices and charges regulated by government, not the industry that has made such a mess of health care.

somewhere I suppose. And if I were supportive of 'free health care for everyone', which 'term' should I support? Single payer? Universal healthcare? Public option?

You asked a question. I gave you answer.

Meaning that there is a single entity that acts as comptroller - receiving monies in and sending monies out. The government would be the best choice, as citizens would pay into the system (via a tax specific to the system, not a general tax) directly to the agency that 'runs' things (like the National Health Service in the UK). That agency would pay monies out for treatment to hospitals/doctors/labs/etc.

It's not so hard, unless you're a member of Congress.

and "co-pay"

And it is paid for by a standard taxed amount, whereas an insurance policy is paid for by monthly premiums and then "co-pays" for service on top of that.

seriously.

Sometimes when heath care is provided "for free" (aka via your tax dollars or insurance with no co-pay or insurance like for car accidents or on the job injuries) people do not take their care seriously. Most of the no-shows I have had are from people who have to pay nothing for their care. Those who have to pay even $15 tend to take their visits more seriously than those who pay zero.

because it's *their health* isn't likely to take their health seriously outside of the doctor's office anyway.

I personally take anything I pay several thousand dollars a year for seriously, separate from the fact that it's my living I'm taking care of. Hopefully any health reform plan can include education on why taking care of yourself is important.

I have found those with on-the-job-injuries are least likely to follow through on their plan of care which seems odd since it is free (workmen's comp insurance you pay for pays for it, but still you don't have to actually pay more, hence "free") but they don't show for therapy appointments (massage therapy), don't call, just don't show.

or are you trying to be sarcastic?

As the poster just after you says, "Single-Payer" (SP) = No Pay

All healthcare monies are paid from ONE SOURCE (the government) ~ which is 'us' ultimately. We, as individuals don't have to pay out AT ALL directly for our healthcare. This works in MANY, MANY countries, and has worked for long periods of time.

I really don't have a clear understanding of some of these terms. I'm looking at this debate from outside the US, from a country (Japan) that has compulsory national health insurance which pays for 70% of the cost of prescription medicines and necessary medical procedures, including dental.

Universal health care could be either through a single payer system, or through a public option -- it simply means one way or another everyone is covered. Some would debate whether "everyone" includes only US citizens or not.

The "public option" is a government run health insurance program. This should provide better coverage for a lower cost than current private insurance plans, and it would be available to everyone. Presumably (but it's not an automatic part of a public option) those who would have difficulty affording the public plan would get the coverage either free, at a discounted rate, or would be provided with a tax subsidy to help cover the cost of the plan.

A public option leaves much of the current health care system intact, however, with the public insurance plan just being one more player paying into pretty much the same system we have now. Without further changes (like forcing new rules on the current private insurance system, mandating streamlined billing and payment processes, the power to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, etc.) a public option alone wouldn't help change things much.

A single payer system would turn nearly the whole of our health care system into something very much like the current VA hospital system -- government run hospitals, doctors and nurses on the government payroll, etc. Private insurance, private hospitals, and privately-paid medical personnel wouldn't disappear, but the need for them would be greatly reduced. There wouldn't be any need for insurance coverage -- being taken care of would be automatic, with nothing to pay at all, or fairly low token fees for basic services and prescriptions.

Thanks for your explanation :-)

Single-payer would be more like "Medicare for All".

Universal health CARE and Universal health COVERAGE....I'm not so sure....

Is that the idea that people are forced to buy into a plan, otherwise they are criminals for not buying (even though they can't afford it?)

Now THAT would be 'criminal', but I digress.......

Universal health care just means everyone is covered no matter what.

Single-payer means the government acts as the primary health insurance company for everyone, paying out claims out of some fund. This is how Medicare works. Presumably the insurance corporations would be out of the business of primary care and would instead provide policies for supplemental care only.

Public Option means we don't put private insurance out of the business of primary care. Instead we create a publicly owned insurance as an alternative to UHC Cigna or whatever. In theory this makes the market much more competitive, and under new rules, corporations are no longer able to cherry-pick their clients, excluding due to pre-existing conditions, ect.

Exactly how these would be funded is still in question. I imagine they would be funded by employers through taxes or fees.

I say keep it simple and go with single-payer.