Over than half of Americans say President Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional as it heads to the Supreme Court. At the same time, Congress’ official scorekeeper says the law could cost a bit more and leave more people uninsured than predicted.
The issues of bad news comes as both sides in the health care debate are raising the level of rhetoric before the historic court argument, which will consume six hours over three days March 26-28.
A new poll by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation found 51% of those surveyed say the court should rule that the law’s individual mandate is unconstitutional. That’s the linchpin of the law, the requirement that most Americans buy insurance or pay a penalty.
Which is a form of coercement.
The Congressional Budget Office has altered its official estimates of the law’s impact, both demographically and fiscally.
A new CBO report found that the law would increase the number of Americans with health insurance by 30 million to 33 million and would leave up to 27 million uninsured. The resulting in 93% insured is below the previous estimate of 95%.
Single-payer is defined to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as insurance payer.” In the case of healthcare, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all healthcare fees, and pay out all healthcare costs.
In the current US system, there are literally tens of thousands of different healthcare organizations=HMOs, billing agencies, etc. By having so many different payers of healthcare fees, there is an enormous amount of administrative waste generated in the system. (Imagine how complicated billing must be in a doctor’s office, when each insurance company requires a different form to be completed, has a different billing system, different billing contacts and phone numbers—it’s very confusing.)
In a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other healthcare providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don’t have it. 53 million without health care 63,000,000, without dentistry.
Hospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses—a “global budget.” A separate budget would cover such expenses as hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc.
Doctors would have three options for payment: fee-for-service, salaried positions in hospitals, and salaried positions within group practices or HMOs. Fees would be negotiated between a representative of the fee-for-service practitioners (such as the state medical society) and a state payment board. Government would serve as administrator, not employer.
His is what we where cheated out of with Obama Care.
A 2004 economic study published in The New England Journal of Medicine determined that a national single-payer healthcare system would reduce costs by more than $400 billion a year even with the expansion of comprehensive care to all Americans. No other plan projects this kind of savings.