• Article by: Nicholas Covington

    I am an armchair philosopher with interests in Ethics, Epistemology (that's philosophy of knowledge), Philosophy of Religion, Politics and what I call "Optimal Lifestyle Habits."


      1. Two-thirds of what we currently pay for insurance premiums, copay’s and payroll taxes. Contrary to intuition, medicare-for-all is actually *cheaper,* not more expensive. This is due to the fact that the private insurance system contains expenses medicare for all does not (The cost of profit and Double paperwork).

    1. Conrad Amenta (24 January 2018). “Side Effects of Passing Single Payer Healthcare”. International Policy Digest :

      The companies that stand to lose the most in a move to government-provided health insurance are worth about a quarter of a trillion dollars in value, and a half-trillion dollars in annual sales, which is to say, mostly in policies sold. That’s about 1% of the total U.S. market.

      Let’s presume that that wealth would not be totally wiped out. In single-payer countries like Canada, there’s still some room for commercial insurers, specifically in dental and eye care insurance, prescription drugs, and supplemental insurance. The core product of health insurance that covers primary, specialty and emergency care would be subsumed by a public insurance offering. Moving to single-payer would effectively remove 1% of the total value of the U.S. market by rendering the commodity of policies issued valueless.

      Alicia Adamczyk (13 April 2017) [now bolded]. “What Is Single-Payer Healthcare and Why Is It So Popular?”. Money :

      Single payer would simplify all of this by largely cutting out the insurance and pharmaceutical companies and untethering coverage from your job. The losers are those middlemen, like private insurance companies, that make the current system so frustrating to navigate and politically fraught. Also, much to the dismay of the wealthiest households, their taxes would increase the most of any group.

      But the working middle class—people who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act coverage subsidies—would benefit greatly, as would an employer’s HR department. “Employers spend a lot of money processing information for the insurance industry, identifying insurance plans, and negotiating,” says Friedman. “And that would just disappear.”

      Anamaria Lopez (8 July 2017). “The Economic Case for Single Payer Health Care in the US”. Institute for New Economic Thinking :

      [Per Julie Nelson, Professor of Economics at University of Massachusetts Boston]
      Nelson posits that a move away from an employer- or private insurer-based system will have a net positive effect on efficiency because workers will no longer need to consider the availability of insurance when deciding whether to take or leave a job. As a result, they will be more likely to take up employment that they enjoy and that fits their skill set, without being restricted in terms of hours or location.
      [Per Economist Gerald Friedman, at University of Massachusetts Amherst]
      Over time, Friedman argues, a single-payer system will not only cut costs, but also significantly improve the quality of health care and lead to more innovation and deeper research.

    2. Although a single payer system has its problems (lack of funding etc.), it is still greatly appreciated by the people who have socialised medicine, even Reagan’s sidekick Maggie Thatcher would not jeopardise the National Health Service, the greatest compliment to a socialised system is that it is copied throughout the world, nobody copies the US system.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *