Universal health care needs better salesmen.
The advocates of single-payer systems are doing a poor job of advertising.

Listening to Tom Dashiell interviewed on Jerry Doyle's show. Doyle asked the basic 'conservative' question: Where will all the money come from?

The basic flaw in the question: John Q. Public forgets that he's already paying a sizable amount each month for health insurance because the amount is automatically deducted from his paycheck. He's also paying a sizable part of the bill for others, through costs added to doctor and hospital bills.

When John Q hears about a government system, he assumes correctly that the system will require new taxes but forgets that it will also relieve him from the other payments.

Dashiell missed this point entirely, which made his answer unconvincing.

Personal example: In the last few years before I semi-retired, say 1997-2002, my employer was deducting $300 a month for health insurance, which was about 9% of gross monthly pay. In addition, the employer deducted 6% for Medicare.

Thus I was paying 15% for mixed private-government health care. If my income had been smaller, the percent would have been larger because the $300 was constant, not a percentage. In other words, our health care tax is regressive.

In short, where would the money come from? The same place it's already coming from.

And would that require a lot more money to be snatched from my pocket?

No. If done properly, it would take a lot less.

Consider the French system.

The French government charges everyone 7% of their income for all health care at all ages; no separation between working-age and retirement-age care.

That's half of what I was paying, and it's a constant percentage. A flat tax, not regressive or progressive.

In return, they cover about 70% of routine expenses (checkups, prescriptions, treatments) and 100% of major surgery, which is similar to most American employer-based plans.

How do they charge half as much for similar coverage? I'd guess four major factors:

1. Because everyone is covered, there is no cost-shifting by hospitals, doctors, etc. You're not helping the hospital to cover its "charitable obligations".

2. Because the system is government owned, litigation can be stopped before it starts. (The principle of sovereign immunity. This should be obvious, but I haven't seen anyone except Polistra even mention it.) So doctors don't have to waste money on unnecessary treatments and tests; they can practice medicine instead of law.

3. Because the whole system runs the same way, administration and medical records can be centralized. It's not scattered among many insurance companies and many unrelated and uncooperative government branches as ours is.

4. For routine stuff, the patient pays the doctor directly, then files the claim to the gov't for 70% reimbursement. So doctors don't need to hire extra secretaries to spend all day negotiating with insurance companies, and don't need to hedge against the risk of non-payment.

= = = = =

The French way works. The American way doesn't. As usual.

Why can't our Dems simply xerox the French system and explain it as above?

Part of the reason, of course, is that the Dems are wholly owned by trial lawyers, so they can't do the "no litigation" part at all.

For the rest, I don't know. Maybe they're not really interested in universal health care at all, but just want to continue the fucking argument for another 600 fucking years while we die like fucking flies. Goddamn them all to the lowest circle of Hell.
  ¶ 9:31 PM