In recent years, there’s been a growing call to investigate the potential of the single payer healthcare system in America. With plenty of support from both those in favor or opposed to the concept, it’s easy to forget that not everyone understands the finer points of the system. In the article below, we’ll explore the general nature of this scheme and provide answers to the most common questions to better inform those who wish to take part in the debate.
Complex Simplifications
Single payer is a term that refers to whom or what is paying for health care. In a single payer healthcare system, all taxable citizens pay a certain percentage of their incomes to the government, which then pays for the provision of care to all citizens. On the surface, this premise is simple, but implementation poses some complex considerations.
Some issues that must be addressed before it can be successfully executed are matters of focus and the type of system that is used. As with Canada, the government may contract with private health care providers, or it may establish government bodies that provide healthcare, as we see in countries such as the United Kingdom. Currently, we employ a multi-payer system.
Related article: 5 Economic Incentives for Healthcare Providers
The primary argument against this structure is that it creates unequal access to basic care and manipulates the price of services. It also builds the market apparatus through which insurance companies control service delivery, which is a primary point of criticism. Single payer systems streamline the process. By dismantling the profit-driven multi-payer health care system, the barriers of copay, discriminatory insurance practices, and premium payments are expunged.
Government is inherently run counter to the considerations of business. It cannot turn a profit. From the opposing viewpoint, single-payer systems have a leveling or degrading impact on the quality and timeliness of care, in which people may wait extended periods for procedures. In reality, the flaws are not in the concept, but its execution.
The Growing Popularity of Universal Care
It’s important to side-step the polarized political arguments surrounding the concept of single payer care. There are some seemingly logical arguments that pose points in favor or against universal healthcare in the United States. However, the primary issue with many of them, irrespective of their position, is that they do not address the real features of these systems, but deal with perception.
Opponents argue that it would be disastrously expensive, that a small number of citizens would wind up paying for the majority, and that people would die waiting for care. Here are the underlying flaws in that perspective. First, it trades on selfishness, invoking the freeloader myth so popular among certain political views. Second, the system can be designed in any way we see fit, which means it need not mirror other models. Lastly, the concept of taxation ensures that even the lower economic classes would be taxed according to their earnings.
It’s difficult to argue with the humanitarian philosophy that no one deserves to die simply because they cannot afford insurance. Such an idea seems barbaric, and given our desire to be an evolved and culturally refined country in the developed world, it is. The main issue is matching ideology to practical cost strategies. Single payer plans must incorporate the hard facts and social realities of our particular culture and style of government. Otherwise, the single payer healthcare system will fail, and spectacularly so.
