Once we achieve single-payer healthcare, should private healthcare be outlawed?

Being rich does entitle you to things not available to others. That's how it works.

Single payer is intended to guarantee an acceptable standard of care to all, rather than to limit what is available to the rich.

If the US somehow got to using a single-payer system (not in our lifetimes), then sure, private healthcare would still be available and legal.

If a person had the means to pay for a private nurse to take care of them at home, which wouldn't be provided by standard care, then they could do that.

If they wanted to pay a specific doctor for a procedure that would not be ordinarily available to them, then they could do it.

I think there would be a lot of upselling of services for hire if standard care was provided for all through general taxes.

Like private school.

Of course it's taxpayer.

The single payer is one entity set up to take payments from tax payers and make payments to healthcare providers.

Is writing "TAXPAYER" a buzz word to get people riled up and oppose it?

Firm believer in Equality wrote:

prevent some people from being better off than others?

Rich people can afford better food, better health clubs, better water filters, better air filters, more cleaning staff, and various other things that will confer health advantages. I find it odd that you would single out healthcare in the traditional sense. Is your ultimate goal complete equalization of wealth, or are you just ignorant?

Firm believer in Equality wrote:

Last night it occurred to me that merely having a single-payer healthcare system would not prevent the rich from using their money to obtain better healthcare than others by paying cash to buy off providers. Allowing this while ok everyone else has to wait in line for government health services is like saying that the rich are more entitled to their lives than everyone else. Should private, for-profit healthcare be outlawed altogether to prevent some people from being better off than others?

90% sure this is a troll but if not its pretty terrifying that there is even one person out there that thinks this way...

hmmmmmmmmm wrote:

Firm believer in Equality wrote:

Last night it occurred to me that merely having a single-payer healthcare system would not prevent the rich from using their money to obtain better healthcare than others by paying cash to buy off providers. Allowing this while ok everyone else has to wait in line for government health services is like saying that the rich are more entitled to their lives than everyone else. Should private, for-profit healthcare be outlawed altogether to prevent some people from being better off than others?

90% sure this is a troll but if not its pretty terrifying that there is even one person out there that thinks this way...

Why?

Well ObamaCare sticks a 40% tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans even though the revenue from it will be negligible in the context of the national budget. It appears that the only purpose of the tax is to serve as a kick in the face to people with good access to healthcare.

Polki wrote:

Why?

Because it would be actively and artificially limiting the quality of healthcare available in the world...that doesn't strike you as immoral?

Polki wrote:

Why?

Because the explicitly stated motivation is not to help anyone, but to hurt the rich regardless of the consequences for anyone else. It's scary that our culture is coming to such a nihilistic stage.

Actually, the system you describe isn't far off from Canada's.

coach d is a fraud wrote:

Polki wrote:

Why?

Because the explicitly stated motivation is not to help anyone, but to hurt the rich regardless of the consequences for anyone else. It's scary that our culture is coming to such a nihilistic stage.

Explicitly stated? Who said that?

Polki wrote:

Explicitly stated? Who said that?

okay take out "explicitly stated" and insert "sole effect"

it doesn't make it any better...

hmmmmmmmmm wrote:

Polki wrote:

Why?

Because it would be actively and artificially limiting the quality of healthcare available in the world...that doesn't strike you as immoral?

But it's limited now. How would single-payer be more limiting?

There is no need to outlaw private healthcare. The market for doctors is so competitive that high quality doctors will be working in private institutions.

Polki wrote:

hmmmmmmmmm wrote:

Because it would be actively and artificially limiting the quality of healthcare available in the world...that doesn't strike you as immoral?

But it's limited now. How would single-payer be more limiting?

This is a good troll.

Polki wrote:

But it's limited now. How would single-payer be more limiting?

Single payer would not be more limiting and no one is saying that...it would simply establish and provide for a minimum standard of care that everyone is entitled to.

Preventing individuals from using their personal resources to obtain care above and beyond that minimum standard would be an artificial limitation...

800 dude wrote:

Actually, the system you describe isn't far off from Canada's.

Canadian Health Care

Private Clinics

In addition to public health care providers such as primary care doctors and hospitals, many private clinics offering specialized services also operate in Canada.

Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this legal issue, many do offer such services.

The advantage of private clinics is that they typically offer services with reduced wait times compared to the public health care system. For example, obtaining an MRI scan in a hospital could require a waiting period of months, whereas it could be obtained much faster in a private clinic.

Private clinics are a subject of controversy, as some feel that their existence unbalances the health care system and favors treatments to those with higher incomes.

Costs in private clinics are usually covered by private insurance policies, which will typically pay around 80% of the costs.

This relates to ideas of, "fairness" which has a very 1980s feel to it in Canada. "Fairness" is defined as having identical services, regardless of price. So it is, "fair" for there to be only one way to get a hip replacement - wait like the guy who depends on provincial healthcare. Provincial insurance is great- that is all I have. We had a baby, and paid $200/night for a private room in the maternity ward, vs 4/room for free. Nobody suggested it was, "unfair", but there are some who might think this.

The development of the private healthcare system in Canada will remove pressure from Provincial plans. Since we all have to pay for it anyway, the possibility of decline is slight.

There are many examples in Canada of this type of, "fairness" thinking. There are ~250 homes on Toronto Island - think Martha's Vineyard 15 mins from downtown - and living there is regulated by the city. The list to live there is long, but there is no fee. Living there is expensive - people are regularly booted, leaving houses in need of considerable repair. The idea of charging people $1k/year to be on the list, or somehow qualifying potential residents to be sure they can actually maintain their properties, is considered, "unfair". Everybody has a right to live there.

The conflicting idea is a) a minimum standard of service provided to the population (you can pay for better) or b) a uniform standard, which cannot be improved by individual payment. The Conservatives favour 'a', the Liberals/NDP 'b'.