One plank of the argument used by US decrier's of single payer,is that "it doesn't work elsewhere".
This seems to be based on purposely misleading information..but the theory goes like this..
1)Single payer will lead to increased government control, over citizens lives,a sort of big brother through health-stealth argument.
2)Choice will disappear..over which doctor you see,when you get to see them etc.
3)It is too expensive
4)It results in lower quality care for many people ..
5)The introduction of single payer is the very beginning of a slide towards communism.
Examples from around the world,clearly show that single payer and public funded systems do not result in an erosion of civil liberties..people who are unwell present at the doctors surgery,the doctor examines you,and either makes a diagnosis,or sends you off to a specialist .Records are kept of the visit,and in our UK case destroyed after 5 years.Confidentiality is seen as sacred,except when an individual makes an admission re suicide,terrorism ,murder or child abuse.If I reveal aspects of a paitients care to anyone outside of the medical environment ,then I could be "struck off".Nurses ,Doctors etc have a code of conduct which is designed around individual paitient need,respect and individuality.
Single payer allows greater choice..particularly for those who might otherwise have no choice but to die/suffer.I can as a paitient,currently choose from three excellent doctors,if I have an ailment,or feel I have an ailment.
Care I have recieved and given is provided by very well trained people..doctors train for seven years,nurses for three years..yet we are continually assessing any gaps in our knowledge,and have to attend courses and develop our skills in order to re-register as professionals.I have since graduating attended around 50 certificated courses (some are mandatory and annual ie anaphalyxsis,lifting and handling etc) varying in length from one day to six months long.
In Britain we have not become kommunist ,though the politburo of the UKSR has ordered me to say that.
That is a whistlestop tour through my experience of the UK's health service,would anyone else like to share an opinion ,an experience or some knowledge gained elsewhere (through the media etc) of another single payer system?
Other arguments by the far right..1)people will lose their self will,and therefore become dependant on public funded healthcare.
2)Any public option will create anti-market competition/market distortion..threatening free enterprise.
Possible answers 1)Universal single payer healthcare is a bedrock,which will save businesses a fortune in health plans,days lost through illness/injury..and ultimately death.Someone is no use to anyone if they aren't breathing.There is no proof from single payer health services around the world ,that any more than a tiny tiny handful of people with hypercondriacal behaviour actually overuse the system,generally people use these systems appropriately.Any unnecessary users will be identified,and offered a solution to their hypercondria..in private run and administered systems there are many cases of Doctors handing out unnecessary treatments..because it is profitable to do so.
2)The market has not created competition, merely cartel type behaviour from the big insurance companies,if the prices weren't beyond reach for 66 million Americans (the uninsured and underinsured ),and people with insurance ,who have breast cancer weren't denied treatment in the combing process than perhaps the market would have a stronger-though still comparitively weak-case,when compared to SP and/or public option.Health provision cannot be left to market forces.Even the politicians have state care..if they think that single payer is all commie..then they are in an inconsistent position..and must give back their money.
(Explained in Plain English)
By Carmen Yarrusso
August 18, 2009
Health care services are in a special category of “services”. Unlike almost all other services in our “free market” economy, most health care services (just like police and fire services) are necessary for all residents — often a matter of life and death.
Incredibly, we treat most health care services as if they were optional for some residents. The extreme costs, the multiple inefficiencies, and the shameful injustice of our current health care system are the guaranteed results of treating heath care services as optional for some residents.
As a civilized nation, we would never tolerate a system where police or fire services were treated as optional for some residents. To understand how utterly absurd our private health care system is, imagine life in America if we treated police and fire services the way we now treat most health care services.
If police and fire services were optional for some
Instead of groups pooling their resources and providing everyone with police and fire services, where each dollar spent provides a dollar’s worth of services (minus the cost to administer payments), imagine introducing a middleman — police and fire insurance companies.
Like our current health care system, about 30% of every dollar we spend wouldn’t provide any police or fire services whatsoever, but instead would go to other insurance company expenses.
Aside from administrative costs to pay for services, insurance companies would pay billions to shareholders as profits, plus spend billions more for advertising, lobbying Congress, huge executive salaries . . .
[click here for rem