Colin Powell Endorses Single Payer

[kalm]

I was listening to some pundit named Glen Ford on a podcast the other day who described (paraphrasing) the Obamacare website as a government built platform for insurance companies to sell their products under the pretense that it's suppose to be providing assistance to the public.

Colin Powell is now jumping on the single payer bandwagon. Hope this is where it all leads (and I think it will)

http://news.yahoo.com/colin-powell-pitc ... itics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[YoUDeeMan]

I was listening to some pundit named Glen Ford on a podcast the other day who described (paraphrasing) the Obamacare website as a government built platform for insurance companies to sell their products under the pretense that it's suppose to be providing assistance to the public.

That is brilliant!

[YoUDeeMan]

Colin Powell is now jumping on the single payer bandwagon. Hope this is where it all leads (and I think it will)

http://news.yahoo.com/colin-powell-pitc ... itics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is stupid (as is his reasoning)!

[ASUG8]

I've always liked Powell, but him saying "I've benefited from single payer for 55 yrs" is hardly a ringing endorsement. I'm pretty sure he's got a much different health plan than the one being required by the ACA. It's beating a dead horse, but if this plan is so great why doesn't Congress put themselves and their aides on it as well?

[YoUDeeMan]

I've always liked Powell, but him saying "I've benefited from single payer for 55 yrs" is hardly a ringing endorsement. I'm pretty sure he's got a much different health plan than the one being required by the ACA. It's beating a dead horse, but if this plan is so great why doesn't Congress put themselves and their aides on it as well?

THIS.

Colin Powell, like the rest of Washington, is out of touch and out of reality. Therein lies the failure in his reasoning.

[Baldy]

I was listening to some pundit named Glen Ford on a podcast the other day who described (paraphrasing) the Obamacare website as a government built platform for insurance companies to sell their products under the pretense that it's suppose to be providing assistance to the public.

Colin Powell is now jumping on the single payer bandwagon. Hope this is where it all leads (and I think it will)

http://news.yahoo.com/colin-powell-pitc ... itics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He also endorsed the invasion of Iraq.

[Grizalltheway]

I've always liked Powell, but him saying "I've benefited from single payer for 55 yrs" is hardly a ringing endorsement. I'm pretty sure he's got a much different health plan than the one being required by the ACA. It's beating a dead horse, but if this plan is so great why doesn't Congress put themselves and their aides on it as well?

He's endorsing single-payer, which the ACA is not.

[kalm]

I've always liked Powell, but him saying "I've benefited from single payer for 55 yrs" is hardly a ringing endorsement. I'm pretty sure he's got a much different health plan than the one being required by the ACA. It's beating a dead horse, but if this plan is so great why doesn't Congress put themselves and their aides on it as well?

THIS.

Colin Powell, like the rest of Washington, is out of touch and out of reality. Therein lies the failure in his reasoning.

1). Is (referring to G8's post) the ACA itself a health plan or does everyone have to a compliant health plans that fit it's criteria...including congressional aides?

2). You're both missing Powell's point. Of course folks who benefitted from rock solid government plans like Powell or Congress and their staffs are out of touch, but so are people who've had rock solid employer base plans that provide great coverage and very little out of pocket expense. If you're not really on the hook for the outrageous fees why would you care about over-billing and price gouging?

Powell is recognizing that not everyone has enjoyed those benefits and he thinks the greatest country on earth can afford to make it so. Private insurance is expensive and too many people choose cheaper plans that don't provide enough coverage to avoid bankruptcy in the case of a major issue or they roll the dice and go without. This has been a tremendous drag on the system.

No system is perfect but single payer has proven to cut expenses without compromising outcomes. I'd rather take a chance that we're as smart as the Swedes and can make it work than continue to see bake sales to raise money for some poor previously insured schmuck who though he'd never get cancer or that his insurance would not run out...and now has the nerve to expect all life saving measures be at his disposal.

[dbackjon]

Single payer is the only way to go.

[ASUG8]

THIS.

Colin Powell, like the rest of Washington, is out of touch and out of reality. Therein lies the failure in his reasoning.

1). Is (referring to G8's post) the ACA itself a health plan or does everyone have to a compliant health plans that fit it's criteria...including congressional aides?

2). You're both missing Powell's point. Of course folks who benefitted from rock solid government plans like Powell or Congress and their staffs are out of touch, but so are people who've had rock solid employer base plans that provide great coverage and very little out of pocket expense. If you're not really on the hook for the outrageous fees why would you care about over-billing and price gouging?

Powell is recognizing that not everyone has enjoyed those benefits and he thinks the greatest country on earth can afford to make it so. Private insurance is expensive and too many people choose cheaper plans that don't provide enough coverage to avoid bankruptcy in the case of a major issue or they roll the dice and go without. This has been a tremendous drag on the system.

No system is perfect but single payer has proven to cut expenses without compromising outcomes. I'd rather take a chance that we're as smart as the Swedes and can make it work than continue to see bake sales to raise money for some poor previously insured schmuck who though he'd never get cancer or that his insurance would not run out...and now has the nerve to expect all life saving measures be at his disposal.

I won't post it all here, but this link is the hypocrisy I'm referencing. The Dems ramming this down everyone's throat didn't take into account that even their staffers would have trouble paying for coverage through the exchanges if they weren't exempted.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/politics/ ... obamacare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I won't argue with you that the system is broken and we have the opportunity to make it better because very few people would take the opposing side. This plan, however, was flawed from the outset based primarily on the haste with which it was written and rolled out. It has some nuggets of goodness, but as a whole it's just been a wreck.

[kalm]

1). Is (referring to G8's post) the ACA itself a health plan or does everyone have to a compliant health plans that fit it's criteria...including congressional aides?

2). You're both missing Powell's point. Of course folks who benefitted from rock solid government plans like Powell or Congress and their staffs are out of touch, but so are people who've had rock solid employer base plans that provide great coverage and very little out of pocket expense. If you're not really on the hook for the outrageous fees why would you care about over-billing and price gouging?

Powell is recognizing that not everyone has enjoyed those benefits and he thinks the greatest country on earth can afford to make it so. Private insurance is expensive and too many people choose cheaper plans that don't provide enough coverage to avoid bankruptcy in the case of a major issue or they roll the dice and go without. This has been a tremendous drag on the system.

No system is perfect but single payer has proven to cut expenses without compromising outcomes. I'd rather take a chance that we're as smart as the Swedes and can make it work than continue to see bake sales to raise money for some poor previously insured schmuck who though he'd never get cancer or that his insurance would not run out...and now has the nerve to expect all life saving measures be at his disposal.

I won't post it all here, but this link is the hypocrisy I'm referencing. The Dems ramming this down everyone's throat didn't take into account that even their staffers would have trouble paying for coverage through the exchanges if they weren't exempted.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/politics/ ... obamacare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I won't argue with you that the system is broken and we have the opportunity to make it better because very few people would take the opposing side. This plan, however, was flawed from the outset based primarily on the haste with which it was written and rolled out. It has some nuggets of goodness, but as a whole it's just been a wreck.

I'm not a fan of Obamacare either.

[YoUDeeMan]

Single payer is the only way to go.

Limited thinking...and another example of how liberals are so willing to compromise on things.

[Pwns]

1). Is (referring to G8's post) the ACA itself a health plan or does everyone have to a compliant health plans that fit it's criteria...including congressional aides?

2). You're both missing Powell's point. Of course folks who benefitted from rock solid government plans like Powell or Congress and their staffs are out of touch, but so are people who've had rock solid employer base plans that provide great coverage and very little out of pocket expense. If you're not really on the hook for the outrageous fees why would you care about over-billing and price gouging?

Powell is recognizing that not everyone has enjoyed those benefits and he thinks the greatest country on earth can afford to make it so. Private insurance is expensive and too many people choose cheaper plans that don't provide enough coverage to avoid bankruptcy in the case of a major issue or they roll the dice and go without. This has been a tremendous drag on the system.

No system is perfect but single payer has proven to cut expenses without compromising outcomes. I'd rather take a chance that we're as smart as the Swedes and can make it work than continue to see bake sales to raise money for some poor previously insured schmuck who though he'd never get cancer or that his insurance would not run out...and now has the nerve to expect all life saving measures be at his disposal.

Single payer lowers costs because bureaucracy and actuary models are going to regulate what tests and procedures you can have that the government will actually cover and what kind of medical technology or drugs you have access to. Doctors won't have free reign to truly make medical decisions for you because the government decides what care you should get given your diagnosis and prognosis. Simply transferring the costs of health care to the government doesn't cut costs.

And don't be so sure that SP wouldn't affect health outcomes, either. There are only so many doctors and health care facilities we have and only so much money for SP to cover costs. You can bet preventative care (think mammograms and colonoscopies) and care for folks with chronic diseases are going to take a real hit with a SP system. The US has the best preventative care, cancer survival rates, and best care for people with chronic diseases bar NONE.

[YoUDeeMan]

Single payer lowers costs because bureaucracy and actuary models are going to regulate what tests and procedures you can have that the government will actually cover and what kind of medical technology or drugs you have access to. Doctors won't have free reign to truly make medical decisions for you because the government decides what care you should get given your diagnosis and prognosis. Simply transferring the costs of health care to the government doesn't cut costs.

And don't be so sure that SP wouldn't affect health outcomes, either. There are only so many doctors and health care facilities we have and only so much money for SP to cover costs. You can bet preventative care (think mammograms and colonoscopies) and care for folks with chronic diseases are going to take a real hit with a SP system. The US has the best preventative care, cancer survival rates, and best care for people with chronic diseases bar NONE.

Yeah, yeah, but do we cover assholes?

dback wants to know that his ass is covered.

[ASUG8]

I'm not a fan of Obamacare either.

I knew you weren't. I simply have little faith that a US government based single payer system will work as well as some of the other successful world models. We can point to greed in the US private sector on the part of healthcare providers and insurers at present (and going forward), but the clowns in DC have demonstrated for years that they are hugely susceptible to the impact of lobbyists, granting favors, etc. Every system has some level of corruption, and ours is no exception.

[CID1990]

I'd like for someone with lots of free time on their hands to put up some charts and graphs and statistics (looking at you, SK) about how single payer in countries like Sweden is so much better than in the US. Ive been to a lot of those countries, and I have even partaken of their healthcare (UK) and I have also listened to their average Joes talk about their systems. It seems like Americans in favor of single-payer are the loudest advocates of how well it works in other places.... louder than the people who actually partake and pay for it.

We have our issues to be sure, but nobody should EVER assume that single payer will have good outcomes all around. Care for the poorest will improve, but care for most of us who post on this board will get worse. Yes, everybody will be covered, but there will be a parallel system of doctors and hospitals available to those who can pay out of pocket, and that system will be far better than the one the government pays. It is the same way down here in Central America, the same way in South East Asia, and the same way in Europe. To expect a different outcome in the US would be stupid.

It's nice to talk a big game in favor of your fellow man, but 95% of you a$$holes would be screaming bloody murder at the bureaucratic nightmare you have to go through to get a procedure done, or in an ER waiting room in the UK waiting hours to get some gash stitched up. Probably the one between your legs.

[89Hen]

Kalm, I have to admit that I don't follow any of this as closely as I should but isn't single payer basically a system where the government makes all the decisions on contracts for health care? It would seem to me that it would be the ultimate breeding ground for cronyism. It would make your favorite whipping boy, Wall Street, seem like a bastion of sound morals and ethics.

[Pwns]

Honestly, I don't think anyone should have to sell their house, declare bankruptcy, or sacrifice their retirement to pay medical bills. That part of our system sucks and I'll give that to the donks and liberals.

On the other hand, so much of what is cited to show the supposed inferiority of the US health care system is a joke. For example, people like to point out infant mortality rates while infant mortality is defined differently across different countries. The US has the best and most sophisticated neonatal ICUs in the world and there's no better place to have a premature birth. No way in heck when you compare apples to applies do we fare worse than the government health care systems. Even more laughable is pointing out rates of things like heart disease that depend on diet and lifestyle. How many people in Europe do you think get real preventative cardiovascular care like stress tests and echocardiograms with specialists? My guess is not nearly as many.

While health care costs are getting out of control and something has to change, I don't see any reason we have to go to a full-blown SP system to fix it. Simple question...if someone rear ends me and damages my car I have to get several estimates or otherwise collision repair shops could charge outrageous amounts for repair. If I needed an appendectomy and went around asking for different estimates people would laugh at me. I have a hard time believing there isn't some way to foster some competition for non-emergency care and create some incentive to keep costs low.

[Wedgebuster]

I was listening to some pundit named Glen Ford on a podcast the other day who described (paraphrasing) the Obamacare website as a government built platform for insurance companies to sell their products under the pretense that it's suppose to be providing assistance to the public.

Colin Powell is now jumping on the single payer bandwagon. Hope this is where it all leads (and I think it will)

http://news.yahoo.com/colin-powell-pitc ... itics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is currently in place, it is called "medicare" and even my staunchly conk headed brother who has nothing constructive to say about the ACA, loves himself his medicare. Maybe it's because the ACA is not single payer...hmm.

[kalm]

I was listening to some pundit named Glen Ford on a podcast the other day who described (paraphrasing) the Obamacare website as a government built platform for insurance companies to sell their products under the pretense that it's suppose to be providing assistance to the public.

Colin Powell is now jumping on the single payer bandwagon. Hope this is where it all leads (and I think it will)

http://news.yahoo.com/colin-powell-pitc ... itics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is currently in place, it is called "medicare" and even my staunchly conk headed brother who has nothing constructive to say about the ACA, loves himself his medicare. Maybe it's because the ACA is not single payer...hmm.

[dbackjon]

1). Is (referring to G8's post) the ACA itself a health plan or does everyone have to a compliant health plans that fit it's criteria...including congressional aides?

2). You're both missing Powell's point. Of course folks who benefitted from rock solid government plans like Powell or Congress and their staffs are out of touch, but so are people who've had rock solid employer base plans that provide great coverage and very little out of pocket expense. If you're not really on the hook for the outrageous fees why would you care about over-billing and price gouging?

Powell is recognizing that not everyone has enjoyed those benefits and he thinks the greatest country on earth can afford to make it so. Private insurance is expensive and too many people choose cheaper plans that don't provide enough coverage to avoid bankruptcy in the case of a major issue or they roll the dice and go without. This has been a tremendous drag on the system.

No system is perfect but single payer has proven to cut expenses without compromising outcomes. I'd rather take a chance that we're as smart as the Swedes and can make it work than continue to see bake sales to raise money for some poor previously insured schmuck who though he'd never get cancer or that his insurance would not run out...and now has the nerve to expect all life saving measures be at his disposal.

Single payer lowers costs because bureaucracy and actuary models are going to regulate what tests and procedures you can have that the government will actually cover and what kind of medical technology or drugs you have access to. Doctors won't have free reign to truly make medical decisions for you because the government decides what care you should get given your diagnosis and prognosis. Simply transferring the costs of health care to the government doesn't cut costs.

And don't be so sure that SP wouldn't affect health outcomes, either. There are only so many doctors and health care facilities we have and only so much money for SP to cover costs. You can bet preventative care (think mammograms and colonoscopies) and care for folks with chronic diseases are going to take a real hit with a SP system. The US has the best preventative care, cancer survival rates, and best care for people with chronic diseases bar NONE.

Medicare already does this, for good reason.

There are many, many unnecessary tests, treatments that do nothing other than make doctors and the owners of the equipment rich.
No needed treatment is denied. No needed drug is denied.
But a whole lot of unneeded treatments are not paid for by Medicare.
Many Doctors make a lot of decisions based on personal financial gain - not what is best for the patient

[ASUG8]

Medicare already does this, for good reason.

There are many, many unnecessary tests, treatments that do nothing other than make doctors and the owners of the equipment rich.
No needed treatment is denied. No needed drug is denied.
But a whole lot of unneeded treatments are not paid for by Medicare.
Many Doctors make a lot of decisions based on personal financial gain - not what is best for the patient

I don't know the answer to this, but I'll ask anyway.

Who should we trust to make those decisions on what is necessary - the docs who are trying to keep a $5MM MRI machine at near capacity, or a bureaucracy that will determine that your suspected brain tumor can be checked out in 30 days after it has been approved by some government methodology?

[LeadBolt]

There are basically two ways to lower costs. One is to wring inefficiency out of a system, improve procedures, invest in new technology, and do what you do better. The second is to cut back on service provided and do less of what you do.

Which of these is the Federal government expert in?

What makes anyone think that single payer will be any different, more efficient, less bureaucratic than the rest of the Federally run and paid for services? Ask your self who you would rather trust quick, efficient delivery of an important package of fragile items to, Fed Ex or the US Postal service?

I believe there is a role for the Federal government in health care and that the Feds can do things to make the system more efficient and provide better services at lower costs, but neither the ACA nor single payer will accomplish this.

[GannonFan]

Single payer lowers costs because bureaucracy and actuary models are going to regulate what tests and procedures you can have that the government will actually cover and what kind of medical technology or drugs you have access to. Doctors won't have free reign to truly make medical decisions for you because the government decides what care you should get given your diagnosis and prognosis. Simply transferring the costs of health care to the government doesn't cut costs.

And don't be so sure that SP wouldn't affect health outcomes, either. There are only so many doctors and health care facilities we have and only so much money for SP to cover costs. You can bet preventative care (think mammograms and colonoscopies) and care for folks with chronic diseases are going to take a real hit with a SP system. The US has the best preventative care, cancer survival rates, and best care for people with chronic diseases bar NONE.

Medicare already does this, for good reason.

There are many, many unnecessary tests, treatments that do nothing other than make doctors and the owners of the equipment rich.
No needed treatment is denied. No needed drug is denied.
But a whole lot of unneeded treatments are not paid for by Medicare.
Many Doctors make a lot of decisions based on personal financial gain - not what is best for the patient

But you're talking about a Medicare system that works in the same arena where non-Medicare healthcare is readily available. Sure, Medicare does decide what is necessary and what isn't necessary treatment, but for many people that's why they also have supplemental health insurance to cover what Medicare doesn't cover. So for many that have Medicare, they are happy to have it because they still have the safety net of some other system in place to get them the medication or surgery they think they need and they know thety want that they aren't too concerned when Medicare doesn't cover it.

However, if you go to a truly single-payer system without the safety net of the private market to get healthcare, then you will start to see many people become dissatisfied with the rationing that is the key to Medicare. Single payer means that a single entity decides what is covered, who it's covered for, and how much will be paid to cover it. There will be many, many things not covered that people have found ways to have covered today, and those "extra" services will become more expensive. Single payer is not some oasis in the desert nirvana that will mean quality care for all. It's just another way of doing pretty much what we do know. Someone will have to say no more testst or no more operations or so on to someone who wants those things in order to rein in costs and I'm not sure we're really ready for that sort of system.

[dbackjon]

Medicare already does this, for good reason.

There are many, many unnecessary tests, treatments that do nothing other than make doctors and the owners of the equipment rich.
No needed treatment is denied. No needed drug is denied.
But a whole lot of unneeded treatments are not paid for by Medicare.
Many Doctors make a lot of decisions based on personal financial gain - not what is best for the patient

I don't know the answer to this, but I'll ask anyway.

Who should we trust to make those decisions on what is necessary - the docs who are trying to keep a $5MM MRI machine at near capacity, or a bureaucracy that will determine that your suspected brain tumor can be checked out in 30 days after it has been approved by some government methodology?

Not sure there is a good answer to that.
But my experience with Medicare (17+ years) is that Medicare generally allows new technology to be used/tested, then gathers data on efficiency of said tests, then sets reimbursements/approvals on the test itself, not individual cases.
For example, we give a drug called EPO. The standards (blood-iron level) are set by a medical panel as to whether or not it should be given, how much, etc. If your blood-iron level is above a certain level (ie. not anemic), then Medicare won't pay for it. You can still get it, but you pay for it yourself.
In another example, when I first started, there was a nerve testing that we performed. Patients hated it (painful), but the doctors at my old place loved it, because they made lots of money off of it. Turned out to be a mostly worthless test. Medicare stopped paying for it, most insurers quickly followed suit, and now it is never performed.