RatLabGuy
You look like a monkey and smell like one too
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Location
- Churchville, MD
I'm not for a single-payer system, but on this highlighted point, *in theory* you're not really going to be adding layers and job,s but removing them - the management of the insurance simply switches from multiple companies to one, and the net number of employee salaries paid would go down, not up. And in reality the execution would not likely be from government jobs (e.g. Federal civilian employees) but rather though a contract to a private company because that would be cheaper and easier to change the personnel.The problem is not the doctors, or the hospitals, or the big medical companies, or the insurance companies, or obamacare, medicaid, or medicare, or <insert name of evil medical related entity>; it's all of it combined and the number of people it takes for all the handoffs and record keeping and ass covering and profit making. Too many layers. A true government run healthcare system would at least be more cost effective because it would eliminate 2 or 3 of those layers. But simply adding an additional layer in the form of obamacare to regulate/tax an existing system and create additional government jobs only adds cost and complexity, with no benefit to the consumer. It's just dumb.
The bigger problem with a single-payer system is lack of competition/incentive to do a good and efficient job.
EDIT I just re-read your post and realized we're on the same page. The problem is in the execution of Obamacare.
Basically what it comes down to is that this *could* be efficient either as full competition w/ minimal regulation OR a single-payer, purely gov-run deal, but it's impossible for something in between to work out.