Single Payor Becomes Best Option
- Thread starter JosephDeacon
- Start date
- 2,103
Exactly, you are making my point for me. Not only did you just include a bunch of entities within that pool, you left out the most important one which is you and me. The government entities take money from us, throw it in a pool, redistribute it... so much easier if you and I , the true single payors in all of this, could just walk up to the doctor and pay him in cash.
Single payor means I walk up to the doctor and pay him in cash. One single payor. Medicare is two or three payor at least.
Sorry to disagree but your examples are incorrect. It is not that a person walks up and pays, it refers to a pool of money collected.
- 2,103
Ummm, don't you see that the pool is collectivist?? A collective of a bunch of entities, in the pool? That is the definition of many or more than single. They need to rename that thing from "single payor" to "multiple payors in a pool".
I see what you are trying to say, HomeService, but your example of payment for a doctor visit is too small of an example. How about paying a $100,000 cancer bill? Hardly can a "single payer" as you defined it afford to do that. That's why we have insurance, and one of the main concepts of insurance is a pool. It's a pool of funds provided by a pool of people so risk can be spread.
So, really your concept of "single payer" means "cash buyer" rather than "insured buyer". And, although it would be nice to go back to the 1940's when a family paid for a $100 maternity in cash, today's health care costs require protection from financial catastrophe through means of insurance.
Therefore, the term "single payer" emerged when government entities decided to restrict the funding of health care costs and health care insurance to one single plan rather than multiple insurance companies with many choices of plans.
To your credit, you described the problem our system has with multiple entities, and how funds flow from more than one source. Those sources include premiums from the individual or employer, taxes, insurance benefits, etc. This confluence of funds isn't defined as multiple payer vs single payer. It's described as THIRD PARTY payment, which causes a lack of consumer motivation to control costs. It's a genuine problem, and you genuinely described it. You just used the wrong terminology, that's all.
So, really your concept of "single payer" means "cash buyer" rather than "insured buyer". And, although it would be nice to go back to the 1940's when a family paid for a $100 maternity in cash, today's health care costs require protection from financial catastrophe through means of insurance.
Therefore, the term "single payer" emerged when government entities decided to restrict the funding of health care costs and health care insurance to one single plan rather than multiple insurance companies with many choices of plans.
To your credit, you described the problem our system has with multiple entities, and how funds flow from more than one source. Those sources include premiums from the individual or employer, taxes, insurance benefits, etc. This confluence of funds isn't defined as multiple payer vs single payer. It's described as THIRD PARTY payment, which causes a lack of consumer motivation to control costs. It's a genuine problem, and you genuinely described it. You just used the wrong terminology, that's all.
Last edited:
Similar threads
