# Socialized Medicine and Single Payer Systems **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644 "2012-08-06T18:58:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/81 "2012-08-10T11:32:58Z")
The same is true in the US. Does my citing that my insurance is awesome prove that the US system is superior? The nature of failure of health care delivery systems is that you don’t know they suck until you’ve been failed, at which point you probably won’t be in any condition to tell us about it. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/82 "2012-08-10T11:41:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The same is true in the US. No it isn’t. What would happen to an 80 year old uninsured man in the United States? > [@](#): > > Does my citing that my insurance is awesome prove that the US system is superior? …why don’t you ask the massive pools of people who either don’t have insurance or have insurance but not enough? > [@](#): > > The nature of failure of health care delivery systems is that you don’t know they suck until you’ve been failed, at which point you probably won’t be in any condition to tell us about it. Well duh. What does that have to do with the conversation? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/83 "2012-08-10T11:45:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8171165/British-cancer-survival-rates-still-lagging.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8171165/British-cancer-survival-rates-still-lagging.html) > > Survival rates have improved, but UK still lags. …lags in comparision to Australia, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. How does it compare to the US? > [@](#): > > Here’s the advantages to UHC: > > 1. Certainty. You know you have health care, regardless of income and job status. There won’t be any anxiety about what is and is not covered, because everyone is treated the same. > 2. Equality. Everyone gets the same basic level of care. > > And that’s pretty much it. Anything else is simply made up pap to try to sell the middle class something they mostly already have. Those are enormous advantages, don’t get me wrong. YOu could probably get people to support it even in the US without trying to sell it as the awesomest thing since the Iphone. But trying to tell some of these union guys with the cozy gold-plated plans that they’d be better off if that was taken away and they were dumped into the same pool as everyone else won’t fly. What on earth are you talking about? Where is this made up pap? What has this got to do with union guys and gold plated plans? What is this rubbish about dumping people into the same pools? You’ve written a load of nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/84 "2012-08-10T11:49:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The plural of anecdote is not data. And the google searches are only to find cites, which are required here. > > But I’m used to the waving away of inconvenient truths from the proponents of UHC. It’s practically a matter of religious faith. No, it’s just that those actually living under those systems know better. The _only_ people who ever argue against UHC are libertarians who have never lived under such a system, and that is because they have no fucking idea what they are talking about. > [@adaher](#): > > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8171165/British-cancer-survival-rates-still-lagging.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8171165/British-cancer-survival-rates-still-lagging.html) > > Survival rates have improved, but UK still lags. Yes. Behind 4 other countries with very similar UHC systems. You also didn’t mention whether or not the objection other people have brought up (the USA data being skewed by ignoring cancer cases that go completely ignored) is correct or not. And even then, that’s one disease in one country. It could be simply a statistical abberation. Maybe the UK is just bad at dealing with cancer compared to other countries – that’s what it looks like when you notice that it lags significantly behind other UHC countries, not just the USA. Also, where is the statistic for the USA again? > [@](#): > > Here’s the advantages to UHC: > > 1. Certainty. You know you have health care, regardless of income and job status. There won’t be any anxiety about what is and is not covered, because everyone is treated the same. > 2. Equality. Everyone gets the same basic level of care. > > And that’s pretty much it. Anything else is simply made up pap to try to sell the middle class something they mostly already have. Those are enormous advantages, don’t get me wrong. YOu could probably get people to support it even in the US without trying to sell it as the awesomest thing since the Iphone. But trying to tell some of these union guys with the cozy gold-plated plans that they’d be better off if that was taken away and they were dumped into the same pool as everyone else won’t fly. Cozy gold-plated plans? Man, I dunno which planet you live on, but where I come from, benefits (even for unions) have been slashed in almost every field, and we _just_ passed a law that prevented health care providers from completely screwing people over. And even then, _UHC doesn’t preclude private health care_. Those union guys can keep their gold-plated plans. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/85 "2012-08-10T11:53:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8171165/British-cancer-survival-rates-still-lagging.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8171165/British-cancer-survival-rates-still-lagging.html) > > Survival rates have improved, but UK still lags. > Here’s the advantages to UHC: > > 1. Certainty. You know you have health care, regardless of income and job status. There won’t be any anxiety about what is and is not covered, because everyone is treated the same. > 2. Equality. Everyone gets the same basic level of care. > > And that’s pretty much it. Anything else is simply made up pap to try to sell the middle class something they mostly already have. Those are enormous advantages, don’t get me wrong. YOu could probably get people to support it even in the US without trying to sell it as the awesomest thing since the Iphone. But trying to tell some of these union guys with the cozy gold-plated plans that they’d be better off if that was taken away and they were dumped into the same pool as everyone else won’t fly. I see, just those advantage eh? What you do need to understand is that all the benefits of UHC are _in addition_ to the ability to pay for private treatment. Yes, the treatment available to wealthy Americans is equally available to those in the UK willing to pay for additional private policies. (which are still cheaper than in the US). Of course not too many choose that route because the NHS is good enough for the majority of us and deals with our mundane ailments and catastrophes very well (and at no charge). But should we wish we can pay extra. So the well-off have access to all the gold-plating that you do in the US, \*PLUS \*universal coverage of a slightly less dazzling nature open to everyone. And all at a cost per capita less then the USA. (and the NHS is by no means the only or best model of UHC but it is a damn good try) So I’m not seeing who is losing out under UHC, can you elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/86 "2012-08-10T15:32:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Any evidence that the gap has closed and Britain isn’t still way behind? Or are we just to assume the problem is solved. I notice there’s a lot of assumptions behind UHC, mostly involving unicorns and other pony-type creatures. No, I think the fantasy suiff is restricted to anti-UHC types. UHC simply works. You can cherry pick data here and there, but countries with UHC spend less and people live longer. You should spend a moment to reflect on why you oppose UHC so much that you have to actively look for data that supports your pre-conceived bias. Is it really worth letting the country go bankrupt and have people die to support your libertarian fantasies? ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/87 "2012-08-10T16:25:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Any evidence that the gap has closed and Britain isn’t still way behind? Or are we just to assume the problem is solved. I notice there’s a lot of assumptions behind UHC, mostly involving unicorns and other pony-type creatures. You seem to equate UHC with the UK only. As well as being 20 years after the fact, the article you cite lists four countries that performed better than the UK, and three of them were UHC models. At that time, UK GDP spending on healthcare was was sub 8%. GDP itself has grown exponentially in the interim, and healthcare was also prioritised for over a decade with historic levels of investment, bring the annual rate to sub 10% of GDP. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/88 "2012-08-10T20:14:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Do people still experience privation due to heavy tax burdens? Or is that yet another promised problem UHC was supposed to fix but didn’t? “Privation due to heavy tax burdens” is simply not a feature of modern liberal democracy. No one ever suffers privation due to heavy tax burdens. You may as well worry about an epidemic of people being accidentally smothered by Band-Aids. It’s nonsense. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > No, it’s just that those actually living under those systems know better. The _only_ people who ever argue against UHC are libertarians who have never lived under such a system, and that is because they have no fucking idea what they are talking about. Oh, man, now I want _that_ in my sig. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/89 "2012-08-10T20:34:13Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > No, it’s just that those actually living under those systems know better. The _only_ people who ever argue against UHC are libertarians who have never lived under such a system, and that is because they have no fucking idea what they are talking about. I want to clarify this. I seem to recall, there was a British pol not long ago who talked about dismantling NHS. The Tories had to distance themselves from that screwball. But there are Brits who actually think that way. They are children of wealth and privilege who have been able to “top up” and buy their way past the care given to commoners, _because Britain does not outlaw private care;_ And they are the particularly stupid (and thankfully rather small) proportion of the ruling class who don’t understand the natural popularity of the system, because they don’t see how they need it, they aren’t considering how others need it, and they take too much for granted. They are few and they are ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/90 "2012-08-10T20:48:40Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Oh, man, now I want _that_ in my sig. I just want _a_ sig. ;\_; ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/91 "2012-08-10T21:54:08Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I want to clarify this. I seem to recall, there was a British pol not long ago who talked about dismantling NHS. The Tories had to distance themselves from that screwball. > > But there are Brits who actually think that way. They are children of wealth and privilege who have been able to “top up” and buy their way past the care given to commoners, _because Britain does not outlaw private care;_ And they are the particularly stupid (and thankfully rather small) proportion of the ruling class who don’t understand the natural popularity of the system, because they don’t see how they need it, they aren’t considering how others need it, and they take too much for granted. They are few and they are ridiculous. The shorthand version to this can now be: ‘Olympic Opening Ceremony’. Sometimes, when people on here refer to ‘socialized medicine’ - like they didn’t go to ‘socialized’ schools, it almost feels there’s an implication UHC has been imposed on the rest of the developed world and only the USA has avoided the yoke of oppression. The reality is the rest of the develped world is also democratic and populations have a choice - the only developed country that has not given a choice is the USA. Fwiw, I really hope the working and middle class people of the USA one day enjoy what most in the developed world are proud of and even consider their birth right. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/92 "2012-08-10T22:50:40Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > So I’m not seeing who is losing out under UHC, can you elaborate? The only people that lose out under UHC are 1. Those who are emotionally invested in anti-statist philosophies 2. individuals and groups that may see their income drop under a UHC system (pharma, certain specialists, etc). Most of the criticisms can be traced back to one of those two groups. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/93 "2012-08-10T23:22:30Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > The reality is the rest of the develped world is also democratic and populations have a choice - the only developed country that has not given a choice is the USA. If you’re saying UHC is a choice people express through their vote, then Americans are given that choice every two years. Anytime they want they could elect a slate of candidates to Congress who promised to implement real UHC. They keep choosing otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/94 "2012-08-11T00:13:34Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > “Privation due to heavy tax burdens” is simply not a feature of modern liberal democracy. No one ever suffers privation due to heavy tax burdens. You may as well worry about an epidemic of people being accidentally smothered by Band-Aids. It’s nonsense.Oh, man, now I want _that_ in my sig. So let’s see if I understand this. Someone can be driven to malnutrition by housing costs that make up 50% of their income, but a tax burden of 50% can’t possibly be the culprit? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/95 "2012-08-11T00:16:19Z")
And BTW guys, I’m not against UHC. What I am against is used car sales jobs. “Oh, you’re health care will be just as good as your current insurance!” “No, it won’t cost you extra, it’ll even be cheaper!” “You’ll never be denied access to care like your insurance company does!” “You’ll never have to wait if your problem is actually important!” There is no free lunch. All systems have tradeoffs. It is ridiculously easy to refute UHC supporters because they go right into the argument denying the existence of tradeoffs. That’s not only wrong, it’s three-year old logic. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/96 "2012-08-11T00:25:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And BTW guys, I’m not against UHC. What I am against is used car sales jobs. “Oh, you’re health care will be just as good as your current insurance!” “No, it won’t cost you extra, it’ll even be cheaper!” “You’ll never be denied access to care like your insurance company does!” “You’ll never have to wait if your problem is actually important!” > > There is no free lunch. All systems have tradeoffs. It is ridiculously easy to refute UHC supporters because they go right into the argument denying the existence of tradeoffs. That’s not only wrong, it’s three-year old logic. The trade offs, overwhelmingly, are on the provider side of the equation. Doctors don’t tend to make as much, especially specialists. Insurance companies, of course, tend not to make such astronomical profits. There is some slow down in pharmaceutical innovation, as old drugs remain profitable and newer versions of old drugs aren’t so easy to sell when you only have one customer. I’m not sure if my salary as a nurse would go down, or not; it’s not something I’ve ever considered. I honestly don’t care, if it means I can get health insurance for myself and I wouldn’t have to turn people away because they don’t have the right insurance plan. I’d be happy to take a pay cut if it came with health care for you. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/97 "2012-08-11T00:35:13Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > The trade offs, overwhelmingly, are on the provider side of the equation. Doctors don’t tend to make as much, especially specialists. Insurance companies, of course, tend not to make such astronomical profits. There is some slow down in pharmaceutical innovation, as old drugs remain profitable and newer versions of old drugs aren’t so easy to sell when you only have one customer. > > I’m not sure if my salary as a nurse would go down, or not; it’s not something I’ve ever considered. I honestly don’t care, if it means I can get health insurance for myself and I wouldn’t have to turn people away because they don’t have the right insurance plan. I’d be happy to take a pay cut if it came with health care for you. Unless your feelings are unanimous, the reduction in benefits for being a doctor will result in fewer doctors than there would otherwise be. That’s economics 101. So you get fewer providers and more patients. That impacts patients. There’s a reason that we keep on putting off the Medicare provider cuts that were imposed in the 90s. Because if we do that, it’s recognized that it won’t just affect providers. It will also affect patients. In addition, we were assured by the administration that the Medicare Advantage cuts wouldn’t affect patients. Except the administration doesn’t actually beleive that, which is why they are putting off the cuts until after the election. Provider cuts affect patients. There’s no way around that. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/98 "2012-08-11T01:15:27Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Unless your feelings are unanimous… I can’t claim to have spoken to every single health care provider in the US, of course. As of March 2008 (the last year I can find number for) [59% of doctors supported a national healthcare system](http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/31/us-healthcare-usa-doctors-idUSN3143203520080331?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true), up from 49% in 2002. “The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.” Support is widespread among specialties, perhaps not always for single payer, but some sort of government intervention to mandate coverage and assist low income individuals with paying for it. [American College of Physicians](http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/archive/election/pledge1.pdf): > [@](#): > > Achieve Universal Health Insurance Coverage > Universal health care insurance is necessary to ensure that everyone within the United States has access to needed health care services of high quality. ACP recommends that the federal and state governments consider adopting one or the other of the following pathways to achieving universal coverage, recognizing that each pathway has certain advantages and disadvantages, as described below, that need to be considered by the public and policymaker in deciding which is best for the United States: > • > Pluralistic systems, which involve government entities as well as multiple for-profit and/or not-for-profit private organizations, can assure universal access, while allowing individuals the freedom to purchase private supplemental coverage, but are more likely to result in inequities in coverage and higher administrative costs. Pluralistic financing models must provide (1) a legal guarantee that all individuals have access to coverage and (2) sufficient government subsidies and funded coverage for those who cannot afford to purchase coverage. (See ACP Proposal for Achieving Affordable Coverage for All as an example of how a pluralistic system can achieve universal coverage). > • > Single payer financing models, in which one governmental entity is the sole third party payer of health care costs, can achieve universal access to health care without barriers based on ability to pay. Single payer systems generally have the advantage of being more equitable, with lower administrative costs than systems using private insurance, lower per capita health car expenditures, high levels of consumer/patient satisfaction and high performance on measures of quality and access. They may require a higher tax burden to support and maintain such systems. Such systems typically rely on global budgets and price negotiations to help restrain expenditures, which may result in shortages of services and delays in obtaining elective procedures and limit individual’s freedom to make their own health care choices. [American Academy of Family Physicians](http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/policy/policies/h/healthcare.html): > [@](#): > > Goal > To provide health care coverage to everyone in the United States through a primary care based system built on the patient-centered medical home. > Key Elements of the Framework > > ``` > Everyone will have health care coverage, including catastrophic protection > Everyone will have a patient-centered medical home > Health care will be a shared responsibility of individuals, employers, government, and the private and public sectors > > ``` > > Coverage > Everyone in the United States will have health care coverage. This will be achieved only if Congress enacts legislation requiring health care coverage for all, with a primary care benefit design featuring the patient-centered medical home, and a payment system to support it. [American Academy of Pediatrics](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/4/843.full.html) (endorsement): > [@](#): > > Health insurance should be a right, regardless of income, for all children, pregnant women, their families, and, ultimately, all individuals. [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists](http://classic.acog.org/departments/govtrel/hcfwhcfa-reformprinciples.pdf): > [@](#): > > Cover everyone. Health coverage should be accessible and affordable > to everyone in the U.S., regardless of citizenship or residency status. > If reforms are phased-in, universal coverage of pregnant women and > infants should be the first priority. And, of course, the [Physicians for a National Health Program](http://www.pnhp.org/) are very clear that they do want, point blank, a single payer national healthcare program: > [@](#): > > The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $8,936 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 50 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered. > > This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans. Sadly, the American Medical Association is still a hold out, I do admit. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/99 "2012-08-11T01:18:13Z")
What providers want is for the US government to subsidize their businesses. Health care for all means more customers. They are willing to take a hit on per customer profit, but they would not accept a hit to overall profit. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/100 "2012-08-11T01:22:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What providers want is for the US government to subsidize their businesses. Health care for all means more customers. They are willing to take a hit on per customer profit, but they would not accept a hit to overall profit. So then we agree that we need not worry too much that: “the reduction in benefits for being a doctor will result in fewer doctors than there would otherwise be.”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644.md?page=6)