Why can't we have single-payer government-run Health Insurance for just Primary Care?

Question

In other words, why not have private health insurance companies strictly be responsible for specialized medicine (such as cardiologists, neurosurgeons, dermatologists, etc.), but when it comes to basic doctor visits, that part would be single-payer?

Because the thing I've heard about the drawbacks to single-payer is "long lines and waiting periods for complex surgeries", and the drawbacks to the status we have now is a lot of money goes to basic checkups, prescriptions from the Primary Care physician, etc.

So why not create two tiers, where the basic-level Primary Care would be government-run, and the specialized care would be private insurers alone?

Answer 1

I think it's worth considering, but then what would happen when you needed specialized care? As it is, the insurance companies are unwilling to insure you if they think you might actually use your insurance. If all they insured for were specialists the rate would be astronomical if you were able to find it at all.



And Nik, you get a job and the employer pays you $30,000 a year, which more than a third of Americans make, and the insurance company wants $12000 a year to insure your family of four. What magical put down solution do you have for that?

Answer 2

It's more likely to succeed if private insurance only pays for catastrophic costs, which is far less common than routine diseases that most of us will suffer from repeatedly sooner or later. For people with flu, colds, allergies, and runny noses, they could pay 100% of their own costs, which would eliminate doctor visits for frivolous reasons. It would work like a deductible: You pay 100% until your costs for each instance of disease reach a certain level according to either your income or the disease progression. Preventive care (like preventing old people, the disabled, and children from getting pneumonia) would be covered 100%. After a certain level of expenses are incurred, insurance companies cover all other costs at 100% regardless of preexisting conditions. Lawyers could still work within the system to guarantee that people get the care they need, in cases where treatment options aren't fully explored by medical research.



Yes, we need stem cell research more than ever now, but I have noticed that for the last 20 years, NO ONE is studying ANY disease to discover the causes rather than inventing possible new treatments. This fact proves that research and development of new drugs for new diseases is the reward Big Pharma gets for creating one very expensive aspect of this mess, already.

Answer 3

See, I'd agree with you on this. I'd much rather have to deal with long lines than have overcrowded emergency rooms (that we pay for anyway). Over 40 million Americans don't have healthcare, and much of the remainder are with a company that denies them coverage for anything important. The cost is even worth it, considering most countries that have single payer spend about 2/3 our amount per person.

Answer 4

There is NO AUTHORITY in the Constitution of the United States for the federal government to interfere in health care.



Name a single thing the federal government has ever taken over that was run nearly as successfully, nearly as cost effectively and didn't become a huge tax dollar sucking bureaucratic behemoth. YOU CAN'T!



If I have to pay for health care, even "primary care", can I tell fat people to lose weight, smokers, junkies and drunks to stop ingesting their swill, tramps and baby factories to keep their pants on and zipped? If I have to pay the costs of their choices, I DEMAND the right to veto those choices.



How do you intend to control costs? When have the costs of ANY federal program been controlled?



When has the federal government ever stopped their encroachment at a single step? Letting them control primary care will only lead to giving them total control down the road.



Do you really want to trust the same government that controls the Post Office and Socialist Insecurity with your health care? I don't and you have no right to force me to.

Answer 5

Nik,



Your answer is oversimplified and you left out one step that happens to quite a few people, namely:



You complete an application for insurance where you tell the insurance company that you have Multiple Sclerosis, or a child with Autism, or any other number of diseases that you did nothing to cause, and the insurance company tells you that they don't want to sell you ANY insurance at any price. Sorry, but you're considered uninsurable.



That is a fact. It happens everyday. And that is why we need reform.

Answer 6

What if I don't want to participate? That's the problem with anything the government does, it is not voluntary. Putting a gun in my face and forcing me to participate is a violation of my basic human rights.



Let me be clear: I do not want anything to do with any government health care system. If you put a gun in my face and force me into it, that makes you an evil tyrannical monster. If you want to pay for it and be part of it, that's fine, do it. But I have a RIGHT not to participate.



Just say "HELL NO" to tyranny and slavery.

Answer 7

Might be worth trying to be fair.



First of all, Obama is not going to bring in universal healthcare, a fact that many people (including those who voted for him) seem not to realise. He wants to make insurance more available to all.



Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well.



FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.



FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.



That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.

Answer 8

Why are people like you so intent on having the Government run healthcare. They've done a pretty lousy job running our retirement a.k.a Social Security. Why can't we choose our own doctors and insurance companies and leave the Government out of it?

Answer 9

Because it won't work. Its not economically feasible. It would also be impossible for government to keep its greedy hands off the private side.



We cannot live half free and half slave. It must be one or the other.



They say healthcare in Canada is great until you get sick. Its actually true.



Do you know what "single payer" is? It means we ALL pay it. It means some greedy lazy bums expect 300 million people to pay for his hang nail in the ER. Nothing is more expensive than "free".



Obama said he would not use it and Congress has exempted themselves from it. That should tell you everything you need to know about the plan their cooking up for you.

Answer 10

Government run anything will be full of fraud and bull crap. UNTIL our own Politicians, Government employees, and all UNION workers (which btw are excluded from any healthcare being discussed by our Politicians) be mandated that they ALSO take up these same crummy solutions..................I for one say a definite NO to any Government involvement.

Answer 11

Not possible. When the government gets involved in anything, the government makes it worse.

Answer 12

Only primary care????!!!! You have to know how to do it right. You must have a strong prevention component and research for AIDs and parkinsons disease. Stem cells cost money you know.

Answer 13

Because I don't want to pay for the health care costs of drunks, junkies and welfare parasites.

Answer 14

Heres an idea.



You get a job. You earn money and businesses called insurance companies compete to offer you the lowest price on insurance.

You find the lowest price and considering its the lowest price....you pay for it.