The Conservative Case for Single Payer:

[Aquila]

I'd like some thoughtful opinions discussion on this. What are some of your thoughts regarding the conservative case for single payer health insurance? (An explanation of single payer is provided at the bottom of this post)

The conservative case for single payer

Efficient. Effective. Practical. Make no mistake, there is a strong conservative case to be made for single payer. This is important because, as our health care crisis deepens, we need to make sure we’re speaking to all Americans. Only then can we can build a broad-based movement that pressures Congress to do the right thing.

Consider the House members listed above. Most of these Republicans voted against the American Health Care Act, and they may be willing to co-sponsor H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act. In order for this to happen, they need to hear from their constituents. If you live in one of their districts, we encourage you to call (202) 224-3121 today. (Click here to find your member of Congress.)

When speaking with a conservative member of Congress - or a conservative colleague, friend, or family member, for that matter - keep the following in mind:

Know your audience

Many single-payer advocates argue that “health care is a human right,” but conservatives may be more persuaded by appealing to the values of loyalty, sanctity, and authority. Dr. Ed Weisbart gave an excellent talk recently, titled Progressive Persuasions: Speaking Beyond the Choir, that explores this topic in detail.

Dispel common myths

Myth: Single payer is socialized medicine!
Reality: Medicare-for-all applies the principles of the free market to the delivery of health care. Under traditional Medicare, doctors and hospitals compete to attract patients through service, quality, and access - rather than competing to be in the best-reimbursed insurance plans. Medicare-for-all would open up this patient-centered free market to all Americans.

Myth: Single payer would lead to rationing!
Reality: Today's private health insurance is incredibly restrictive, with narrow provider networks, cost-sharing, and a growing list of treatments that simply aren't covered. Private insurance comapnies have a financial incentive to deny care, and they often do. Medicare-for-all would make it much easier for patients to access medically necessary care.

Myth: Single payer would stifle innovation!
Reality: Americans are justifiably proud of our nation's leadership in medical innovation, but may not realize that most of those innovations are paid for using public funds. As pharmaceutical companies engage in trivial research designed to extend patents, our National Institutes of Health funds truly pioneering work. Medicare-for-all would strengthen the alignment of research with our most pressing health needs.

Expose the Canadian boogeyman

Some of the most pervasive myths about single payer relate to Canada’s Medicare program. Many Americans have heard that Canadians suffer long wait times, and flock to the United States to seek medical care. Thankfully, these myths are easily disproven. Consider the following:

• The 2002 Health Affairs study Phantoms in the Snow found that an exceedingly small number of Canadians seek care in the U.S.

• Waiting lists in Canada can be primarly attributed to lower health spending. Despite this, Canadians do not have to wait to be treated for life-threatening diseases and report fewer unmet health needs overall (see this NBER paper, Table 12).

• Former Canadian Medical Association Journal editor-in-chief and one-time market proponent David Woods says single payer is essential to controlling costs.

• George Mason University law professor Frank Buckley believes Republicans should embrace single payer, and points to the benefits of Medicare in his native Canada.

• Bottom line? Canadian health outcomes are better than American health outcomes, including longer life expectancy and fewer chronic conditions. These gaps have been growing ever since Canada fully implemented its Medicare program in the early 1970s.

Cutting overhead and bureaucracy

Your conservative representative may agree with you that single payer would provide high-quality care, but they may also also argue that the private sector is more efficient than the federal government, and therefore a better steward of our health care dollars.

However, it is our current, market-oriented system that generates the greatest amount of waste and profiteering. Conservatives who hate bureaucracy should be champing at the bit to do away with private insurance company overhead. A February 2017 estimate published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that single payer would generate $504 billion in administrative savings annually.

Economists and public health experts have consistently shown that single payer is an efficient and effective use of resources. Here are some prominent examples:

• PNHP co-founders, Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, argue that single payer would allow for Liberal Benefits, Conservative Spending.

• Nobel laureate Angus Deaton favors single payer “because it will get this [health care] monster that we’ve created out of the economy and allow the rest of capitalism to flourish.”

• Nobel laureate and noted health care economist Kenneth Arrow lauds the Canadian system (with its private practitioners) and says single payer is “better than any other system.”

Boosting American business

Conservative members of Congress often voice concern over the global competitiveness of American business, and rising health care costs are harmful in that regard. Under single payer, U.S. firms might contribute as much to health care as they do now via a payroll tax, but they would no longer need to shop for group policies. They would also be spared the outrageous annual cost increases that have become commonplace in the large- and small-group markets.

For workers, single payer would allow those who are not a good fit for their jobs to seek more productive employment elsewhere instead of staying put in order to preserve health benefits. And would-be entrepreneurs would no longer fear striking out on their own due to a lack of health insurance.

Ultimately, improved Medicare-for-all would ensure a healthier, more financially-secure workforce. Thankfully, employers are starting to take notice:

• MCS Industries founder and owner Richard Master has produced a documentary, FIX IT: Health Care at the Tipping Point, that lays out the business case for single payer.

• Berkshire Hathaway vice-chairman (and longstanding Republican) Charlie Munger says single payer is the solution to America’s health care woes.

• Marks Group owner and prominent blogger Gene Marks considers himself a “smaller government, fiscally right-of-center guy,” but has concluded that single payer would be best for business.

Conservative voters are embracing single payer

Now that Congressional Republicans have unveiled the American Health Care Act, a growing number of their supporters are recognizing the empty promise of "repeal and replace." They are demanding real reform, as evidenced by an April 2017 Economist/YouGov poll that found 46% of Republicans and 40% of Trump voters favor “Expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American.”

Single-payer reform is vitally important, and progressives can’t go it alone. Talk to your conservative friends, colleagues, family members, and elected officials. Listen to their concerns. Let them know that a humane, efficient, high-quality health care system is possible, but only if we work together.

What is Single Payer?

A. Single-payer national health insurance, also known as “Medicare for all,” is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.

The program would be funded by the savings obtained from replacing today’s inefficient, profit-oriented, multiple insurance payers with a single streamlined, nonprofit, public payer, and by modest new taxes based on ability to pay. Premiums would disappear; 95 percent of all households would save money. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, based on PNHP’s AJPH-published Physicians’ Proposal, would establish an American single-payer health insurance system.

[Disciple4life]

Aquila,

This is a great opportunity for you to dispel one more myth.

A person works out six days a week, watches what he eats, is a healthy weight and has no illnesses. He has never smoked, never drank, never stds, not into extreme sports or dangerous actions (street racing, bungy jumping ect.).

Another person has never worked out, morbidly obese, life long drinker and drug user, plus they smoke three packs of cigarettes a day and they love to wrestle alligators on the weekend.

They are both paying the same premium! How is that fair?

One does everything they can to live a healthy lifestyle and the other person seems to want to cheat death every single day of their life.

Oh and single payer is coming regardless of what anybody thinks or wants. It will happen.
It just might take at little longer than people expect!

Oh and great post

[Amanah]

here is the link that relates to the original post

http://www.pnhp.org/gop

[Amanah]

until we close the borders and reform entitlements we can't even think about health care for all.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

until we close the borders and reform entitlements we can't even think about health care for all.

Well, all subsidized medical for those on SSI or welfare would end. Veteran's benefits would be phased out. Healthcare plans for government employees would be unnecessary. State level programs for uninsured kids like those funded in part by SCHIP would be phased out. There would be no need for these different specialized programs or entitlements. They would be dissolved and the funding redirected to the expanded and improved Medicare program.

In a way, it would drastically shrink the number of government health entitlement programs and centralize healthcare.

I think better regulated boarders are a good idea. I break ranks with the rabid liberals on boarder control and immigration. Heck, I'd support removing Islam from being recognized as a "religion" based on the fact that it is built around a body of social law that is to be imposed as the "religion" advances. I mean, if Nazi's started worshipping Hitler, should Nazism be afforded the protections of a "religion"? I think not.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

here is the link that relates to the original post

http://www.pnhp.org/gop

Thanks, I forgot that! LOL You're awesome!

[Aquila]

I have to say this up front, I laughed out loud at your description of these guys. Very funny and creative depiction that is all too accurate to convey your point. LOL

Originally Posted by Disciple4life

Aquila,

This is a great opportunity for you to dispel one more myth.

Please tell me it will be the Loch Ness Monster....

A person works out six days a week, watches what he eats, is a healthy weight and has no illnesses. He has never smoked, never drank, never stds, not into extreme sports or dangerous actions (street racing, bungy jumping ect.). (He's probably a 30 year old virgin. He needs to live a little. LOL)

Another person has never worked out, morbidly obese, life long drinker and drug user, plus they smoke three packs of cigarettes a day and they love to wrestle alligators on the weekend. (Now that's the guy who keeps it interesting. LOL)

They are both paying the same premium! How is that fair?

Ouch. There you go asking a perfectly logical and challenging question. LOL

I think this is where the moral and social obligation to humanity should come into play. If we are our brother's keeper, even our terrible pest of a brother, we have a moral obligation to ensure that we all have the same access and opportunity to receive the care we need. His deeds will catch up to him and he'll have to change his ways eventually... or... you won't be helping to pay for him for long.

In our society, that kind of thing is rather normal. However, in other nations like Canada, UK, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.... the universal access of health care leads to more people having more regular physicals and checkups. Which leads to greater personal health awareness and healthier choices. They catch their obesity rather early on and can address it (unless it is a medical condition beyond eating habits). They also have greater access to assistance with quitting smoking and mental health services that can help them understand why they feel so compelled to wrestle alligators every weekend. This ties into public safety too... they don't have as many crazy shootings because more people have opportunity to seek help or be directed to help when they are showing warning signs of emotional/psychological distress.

Imagine a society focused on health, healing, and wellbeing.

One does everything they can to live a healthy lifestyle and the other person seems to want to cheat death every single day of their life.

Looks like one of them needs universal health and mental services coverage more than the other. lol

Oh and single payer is coming regardless of what anybody thinks or wants. It will happen.
It just might take at little longer than people expect!

I agree.

Oh and great post

Thank you. I thought the article made some excellent points.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Amanah

here is the link that relates to the original post

http://www.pnhp.org/gop

Kind of an oxymoron. A group dedicated to passing a socialist healthcare system, but writing an article claiming to be a conservative case for it. And it's really not much of a written case for it.

[Jito463]

The Conservative case....from AQUILA???

[Nitehawk013]

Now try to troubleshoot the next HUGE problem with Single payer. We already have a doctor shortage in America. The family Doctor is disappearing. It took me 3 weeks to get a 30 minute appointment to see my family doctor for a non-emergency issue. 3 weeks! In boring ol central Ohio.

Now give every person "free" healthcare. You will still have the same groups of people who abuse the medical card and such by running to the dr with every sneeze or sniffle, but now you will also get those who never went to the doc b/c they worked but just couldn't afford to go. Now you lines are even longer. Add in that even more docs will quit (b/c the dirty secret of single payer is that they expect doctors to work for less and less money to keep the costs down, but see even more patients) and you now have a perfect storm brewing.

Single payer doesn't solve this. It just feeds a larger problem. It feels all warm and fuzzy on the front end b/c everyone gets "free" insurance, but it only helps a very small section of society while potentially hurting far more. Healthcare does need fixed, but single payer won't fix it. Obamacare made it worse. The ACHA doesn't look to be great either, but at least it would destroy the mandate/tax return theft portion of Obamacare.

Solving this mess requires personal responsibility, maturity, unity of the citizenry and financial generosity for the less fortunate: none of which are being taught or cultivated in our country anymore.