View Single Post
Old 07-31-2009, 09:05 AM   #8  
RXS676
Gets Weekends Off
 
RXS676's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 105
Default

First of all, my post was intended to be a general discussion along the lines of what the original poster proposed. Not every argument was inteded to be a refutation of a specific argument made by "FighterHayabusa." However, I will respond to a few specifics of the most recent post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FighterHayabusa View Post
I'm not ignoring the unintended consequences, I'm just stating that it's not a FACT that we WILL 100% be a single payer system, and arguments that say we shouldn't do anything because we will look like Canada are fallacious and misleading and ignore the problems with the status quo.
I agree, it isn't a fact, and I fully understand that none of the current proposals will themselves set up a single-payer system. But there are many in Washington, and the president has said so much himself, who do favor a single payer system. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, and I agree there are many problems in the current system. But I think it is fair to say that current proposals could have some effects that will increase calls for a single-payer system in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FighterHayabusa View Post
What if you can't drop it? Yes some small businesses may drop health care, but others won't be allowed to.
There are no proposals being considered that would not allow a business to drop health insurance coverage. You may be thinking of the proposals being considered to require companies who do not provide coverage to pay a fee or tax. But there's nothing to prevent any company of any size from dropping coverage in any of the bills currently being considered. And by the way, additional fees and taxes on small business, especially during a recession, could result in more businesses going under, or having more layoffs, which will increase the number of uninsured who will have to buy coverage on their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FighterHayabusa View Post
You should find someone else to argue this point with since I make no such claim. I'm sure they've thought of this somewhere in the 1000s of pages in at least 1 of the 4 competing bills, though. I don't care so I'm not going to look it up.
Fine, you didn't make the claim. Regardless, the possibility exists. A major claim that was made by the president was that if you were happy with your current plan, you would be able to keep it. These are precisely the questions that should be asked and satisfactorily answered by our lawmakers. "I'm sure they thought of this" and "I don't care so I'm not going to look it up" are precisely the attitudes that I fear the most.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FighterHayabusa View Post
This is like saying "This is my invalid argument". Look up where "Slippery Slope" comes from, and wonder like I do why all of the sudden it's been legitimized to mean one is saying something valid. If it's illegal for a large company to have employees on a public system, how can there be no private system? (As I understand it, the public option is only for individual policies, not large groups, I could be wrong).
Forget the rhetorical devices like "slippery slope." All I'm saying is that more people without group coverage who have to buy insurance on their own, whether they buy coverage through a public plan or not, will lead to more calls for more government involvement in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FighterHayabusa View Post
I made no claim of the sort, I merely pointed out that they are government options that haven't killed private care.
Again, this was part of a general discussion, not a specific response any claim you had made. Nevertheless, the only reason Medicare and Medicaid haven't killed private insurance is that they are limited to the elderly and the poor, who probably couldn't afford to buy coverage from a private company anyway. If a similar option were offered to the entire population, it would be a different situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FighterHayabusa View Post
The subsidies are not for public option, they are for people who are mandated to buy insurance and can't afford it. You will get the subsidy whether you buy public or private. If the government does this right, public option would be very basic care. No one knows with 100% certainty that it won't be.
That's why I said "unless." There are many different proposals that Congress in considering, and that argument relates to that specific hypothetical only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FighterHayabusa View Post
You've presented two hypothetical situations that single payer could happen, but you present no solid evidence other than speculation and a non-professional opinion and then frame them by stating they are logical fallacies.
You're correct, they are hypothetical. I can't predict the future. But I think we need to consider the possible consequences of potential legislation like this, and I think hypothetical scenarios are a perfectly reasonable way to raise questions that should be answered. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "Wait a minute... what about this? What if this happens?" and expect a clear answer before supporting any kind of reform.

Since this is an airline pilot forum, I think any discussion on healthcare would be "non-professional." In my case, however, I am a CPA and a registered actuary who worked for several years in the healthcare economics department of a Fortune-200 insurance company. My department directly supported the pricing and provider-negotiation functions. I have also had several hospitals and hospital systems as clients, and I am intimately familiar with their finances, cost structure, and the details of how they are paid by Medicare/Medicaid versus private insurance. Currently I work in the finance department of a major hospital system, one of the largest in a major metropolitan area. When it comes to health insurance, and how healthcare is paid for, particular by Medicare and Medicaid, I am far from a "non-professional."

Quote:
Originally Posted by FighterHayabusa View Post
If you address one thing from this post, answer this: Why are the majority of universal health care systems not single payer if single payer is so inevitable?
For the record, I admit that single-payer is not inevitable. I admit that no current proprosals in the US will establish single-payer.

However, Canada, the UK, Spain and Italy are all single-payer (i.e. no insurance, government pays for healthcare directly), and Germany and Canada are effectively single-payer (there is insurance but the government provides it). So I think it is fair to say that most universal healthcare systems in the industrialized, Western world ARE single payer.

And it is clear that there is significant support among the president and many in Congress for single-payer, if in principle only and not yet in any specific bill or current proposal.

Last edited by RXS676; 07-31-2009 at 12:34 PM.
RXS676 is offline