The USA should establish a Single-Payer Health Care System

Thanks Con for your swift response. --------------Rebuttals----------------C1: Concerns about OverutilizationYour study showed the conclusion that when co-pays were reduced: "appropriate or needed" medical care as well as "inappropriate or unnecessary" medical care were reduced. However, in a Single-Payer system with low co-pays gives these benefits:Preventive Medicine is Used: Preventive care is less expensive than catastrophic intervention. Often, the uninsured or underinsured end up in emergency rooms because they do not get preventive care or early interventions. For example, an expensive blood pressure pill is cheaper than having a stroke. Therefore, co-pays actually increase the cost of healthcare. [1]Reaching Doctor: Going to the doctor takes time and effort. So, since of this factor, few would actually go to the doctor more than necessary. [1]Smart Card: In a Single-Payer system, a Smart Card could be used such as in Taiwan that includes provider and patient profiles to identify and reduce insurance fraud, overcharges, and duplication of services and tests. The physician puts the card into a reader and the patient’s medical history and prescriptions come up on a computer screen. The insurer is billed the medical bill and it is automatically paid. Taiwan’s single-payer insurer monitors standards, usage and quality of treatment for diagnosis by requiring the providers to submit a full report every 24 hours. This improves quality of treatment and limits physicians from over prescribing medications as well as keeps patients from abusing the system. The Smart Card is a major facet in Single-Payer healthcare efficiency, it makes Single-Payer healthcare remarkably efficient. [2] [3] It streamlines the system.-----------------Further concerns about overutilization:With a Smart Card, patient usage is also tracked. For example, if a patient visits a doctor 20 times a month, the government can visit that patient and have a chat with that person. [3] About your ambulance example, the same would apply. Plus, a co-pay could be based on a patient's income, and when used with a Smart Card, overutilization would become rare.C2: USA already rations care, and doesn't have to:Healthcare in the USA is already rationed. It is rationed, based according to wealth: those who have the money for healthcare get it, and people with more money get it faster. [1] Plus, in Canada and other Single-Payer nations, rationing is public information, publicly accountable by the government. Wait times are published online for all to see. This public attention has led to recent falls in waits there. [4]Since in the USA nobody is accountable for how the system works, it isn't visible on the surface like other nations. Rationing in our system is carried out covertly through financial pressure, forcing millions of individuals to forgo care or to be shunted away by caregivers from services they can’t pay for. [4] As I have said already, the USA system has enough money in it already to fund all necessary medical care for all when spent wisely, with money leftover. Plus, now it sometimes takes months to visit a doctor who accepts insurance. Rationing would not be necessaryAlso, long waiting lists and rationing in necessary treatments would not occur in the USA with a Single-Payer system because of a few reasons, including the fact that the USA already has abundant healthcare resources in place, and has enough funding. Dr. Ronald Glasser pointed out:"An axiom of economics holds that nothing can be rationed that is itself not scarce, and, absent evidence of infinite demand and infinite cost, you can't ration healthcare when there are more than enough doctors, hospitals, and high-tech equipment distributed throughout the country to do everything and anything that needs to be done. American healthcare is an unsaturated demand market, and in such markets "rationing" is simply a code word for not spending the money to take care of the poor, uninsured, the underinsured, and the high-risk patient." [5] [6]In the worst situation, another expert, Dr. Linda Peeno said that if we do have to ration care (she is convinced we would not need to), we have an ethical system that makes fair decisions, and ensures that the money goes back into the health system to benefit patients, not stockholders. [5] -----------USA and Waiting Lists-------------------I have shown that the USA has a more advanced medical infrastructure than comparable nations, and that experts have shown that the USA could handle the patients that need care and anything that needs to be done in a much better way, with no waiting lists or short ones. Plus, medical decisions are made between the doctor and patient, NOT the insurance company and doctor. In Canada in 2006, 80% of Canadians were satisfied to their access to healthcare. [5] And because of the new publicly available information, waiting times are decreasing. [4] Plus most rationed procedures in national healthcare countries are elective (nonlifesaving - such as cataract surgery). [1]Single-Payer systems universally have better results than private healthcare systems:http://www.photius.com...C3: Quality in USA systemIn total, 59% of physicians have said that if the USA switched to a national healthcare system, it would be a positive change. [7] Most say they favor because their patients suffer under our fragmented private system. France doesn't have a "huge problem with physician shortages", they are just decreasing, the same as the rest of the world, because different factors such as the demands, rewards, etc. More Physicians A Single-Payer healthcare system will provide an opportunity to restructure the USA physician workforce, and with approaches such as loan forgiveness for graduating medical students, and increased funding for medical education this will be possible. Reimburesment reform and other reforms would help as well under a Single-Payer system. We should have at least 50 percent of our physicians in primary care fields. [4]Health Planning BoardYou misunderstood, the board wouldn't decide on what literal treatments would be approved and denied, but would decide what would be PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT BASED ON LOCAL SITUATIONS.Drug InnovationMany new drugs are based on federally funded research usually done at universities or at the N.I.H. Plus, drug companies in nations with Single-Payer systems such as in Europe are still very profitable and highly innovative. With a new system, it would be more affordable, and just as innovative. [1]Decreases Costs and FundingAdministration costs, overhead, profiting, advertising, etc. increases health care costs. A non-profit Single-Payer plan would be more affordable. A 7% payroll tax on employers would be utilized. Plus, an individual 2% income tax increase would occur. The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments, and for the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. [4] So, you see enormous savings. Bankruptcies Rationing wouldn't be needed, so no more medical bankruptcies. Sources: [1] Conrad, Jessamyn. What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't. 1st ed. New York: Hachette Book Group, 2008. 104-124. Print. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.npr.org... [4] http://www.pnhp.org... [5] Sherrow, Victoria. Universal Healthcare. 1st ed. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2010. Print. [6] Ronald J. Glasser, M.D., "The Doctor Is Not In: On the Managed Failure of Managed Health Care," Harper's, March 1998, p.35[7] http://www.reuters.com...