Single payer health care in the US would have an astonishingly high price tag

[Peter1469]

Single payer health care in the US would have an astonishingly high price tag (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/single-payer-health-care-would-have-an-astonishingly-high-price-tag/2017/06/18/9c70dae6-52d2-11e7-be25-3a519335381c_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3 _na&utm_term=.643aa5a8e2a2)

I was surprised that the editorial board of WaPo took this position. Well worth the read. A big part of the problem is the level of quality that Americans demand, even when they are not paying.

From an earlier thread to keep in mind. A healthcare system can do only two of these three things:

1. Universality
2. Cost
3. Quality


The single-payer model has some strong advantages. It is much simpler for most people — no more insurance forms or related hassles. Employers would no longer be mixed up in providing health-care benefits, and taxpayers would no longer subsidize that form of private compensation. Government experts could conduct research on treatments and use that information to directly cut costs across the system.

But the government’s price tag would be astonishing. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed a “Medicare for all” health plan in his presidential campaign, the nonpartisan Urban Institute figured (http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000785-The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf) that it would raise government spending by $32 trillion over 10 years, requiring a tax increase so huge that even the democratic socialist Mr. Sanders did not propose anything close to it.

Read the entire article at the link.

[texan]

Absolutely.

But HC is a constitutional right you know! Oh wait no it isn't.

[Common]

Ive always said Id like for every american to have health care, ive also said single payer could never be done here for a variety of reasons

The biggest problem with healthcare is that too many dont pay for it. That includes MILLIONS of illegal immigrants.

[William]

I think this is all confirmation bias theory by people who do not like the idea of government being involved in health care.

Australia is ranked higher for medical care than the USA (but not as high as the UK,) and it has had a UHC system since before my mum was born (but again - not as long as the UK).

The only involvement the government has is paying the bills. You go to the doctor of your choice, and he decides upon your medical treatment, or to which specialist or hospital to send you. If you don't like his choices, you are free to go to another doctor, and they are all private practitioners. I know a little about this cos my mum is a specialist.

And AFIK, the rate of income tax is pretty much the same in Australia as in the USA, except at the very high income rates - where Australia is roughly 5% more than the USA. For that, we get free at the point of delivery health care for life, government funded old age, and widow's pensions, and loads of other social services. But we do have GST (VAT) on most goods other than foodstuffs, but no sales tax. According to the IHDI, our standard of living is ranked 2nd after Norway, so I think Aussies are getting the better deal. :wink:

[Peter1469]

The editors of the Washington Post are die-hard democrats. They have always been for single payer in the past. Confirmation bias for them would have been to overlook the costs.


I think this is all confirmation bias theory by people who do not like the idea of government being involved in health care.

Australia is ranked higher for medical care than the USA (but not as high as the UK,) and it has had a UHC system since before my mum was born (but again - not as long as the UK).

The only involvement the government has is paying the bills. You go to the doctor of your choice, and he decides upon your medical treatment, or to which specialist or hospital to send you. If you don't like his choices, you are free to go to another doctor, and they are all private practitioners. I know a little about this cos my mum is a specialist.

And AFIK, the rate of income tax is pretty much the same in Australia as in the USA, except at the very high income rates - where Australia is roughly 5% more than the USA. For that, we get free at the point of delivery health care for life, government funded old age, and widow's pensions, and loads of other social services. But we do have GST (VAT) on most goods other than foodstuffs, but no sales tax. According to the IHDI, our standard of living is ranked 2nd after Norway, so I think Aussies are getting the better deal. :wink:

The problem in America is the quality factor (see post 1). Additionally, a large part of the increased costs in the US is spend on elder care. Other nations don't put so many resources into people who are dying anyhow.

[Common]

I think this is all confirmation bias theory by people who do not like the idea of government being involved in health care.

Australia is ranked higher for medical care than the USA (but not as high as the UK,) and it has had a UHC system since before my mum was born (but again - not as long as the UK).

The only involvement the government has is paying the bills. You go to the doctor of your choice, and he decides upon your medical treatment, or to which specialist or hospital to send you. If you don't like his choices, you are free to go to another doctor, and they are all private practitioners. I know a little about this cos my mum is a specialist.

And AFIK, the rate of income tax is pretty much the same in Australia as in the USA, except at the very high income rates - where Australia is roughly 5% more than the USA. For that, we get free at the point of delivery health care for life, government funded old age, and widow's pensions, and loads of other social services. But we do have GST (VAT) on most goods other than foodstuffs, but no sales tax. According to the IHDI, our standard of living is ranked 2nd after Norway, so I think Aussies are getting the better deal. :wink:
William this is not australia and we do not have single payer we have an entirely different system that has been in place forever.

To change that puts way to many americans out of work and out of business. This country will never get a consensus to put insurance companies out of business, private owned testing facilities and all the hospitals here are private owned.

With all the people that dont pay for healthcare and dont pay taxs PLUS the democrats quest to bring as m any illegal immigrants here as they can would break taxpayers backs.

Every proponent of single payer wants to use Europe as an example or another country. This isnt other countries and our system just cant be stopped instantly and changed. That is wishful thinking

Look obamacare is DIEING why? because theres too many not paying for it and it made the cost for those that do pay unaffordable and it lowered the quality of healthcare for everyone and changed the benefits of private health plans for many.

Willam our country cant even run Single Payer health care for our Veterans. The VA is a disaster with lousy healthcare and faciliites that are a mess. My govt has promised me since the late 60s they were going to fix it and THEY HAVENT FIXED A DAMN THING... and you expect me to believe our govt can run single payer for everyone. Not a chance its a liberal progressive pipe dream.

Fix the VA first, fix it right and show us you can keep it fixed for 5-10 yrs then come back and talk to me about singlepayer

[Peter1469]

Good point about the VA.

[Green Arrow]

It would be doable if we broke it up state-by-state. Large states like California would have to further decentralize by county, but smaller states like Wyoming could easily manage it at the state level.

[Peter1469]

It would be doable if we broke it up state-by-state. Large states like California would have to further decentralize by county, but smaller states like Wyoming could easily manage it at the state level.

What about states that are already close to bankruptcy, like Illinois?

[Common Sense]

Amazing. Countries like Canada and Germany are perfectly able to do it, but it's too hard for the US? Give me a break.

[Peter1469]

Amazing. Countries like Canada and Germany are perfectly able to do it, but it's too hard for the US? Give me a break.
Reason have been provided, to include the OP.

[Agent Zero]

Single payer health care in the US would have an astonishingly high price tag (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/single-payer-health-care-would-have-an-astonishingly-high-price-tag/2017/06/18/9c70dae6-52d2-11e7-be25-3a519335381c_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3 _na&utm_term=.643aa5a8e2a2)

I was surprised that the editorial board of WaPo took this position. Well worth the read. A big part of the problem is the level of quality that Americans demand, even when they are not paying.

From an earlier thread to keep in mind. A healthcare system can do only two of these three things:

1. Universality
2. Cost
3. Quality



Read the entire article at the link.
I didn't know there were two threads.

Medicare for All may be difficult to achieve, but the onus isn't on the people. It's on the greedy insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, doctors, and private hospitals.

With cooperation it will work.

[Agent Zero]

Single payer health care in the US would have an astonishingly high price tag (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/single-payer-health-care-would-have-an-astonishingly-high-price-tag/2017/06/18/9c70dae6-52d2-11e7-be25-3a519335381c_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3 _na&utm_term=.643aa5a8e2a2)

I was surprised that the editorial board of WaPo took this position. Well worth the read. A big part of the problem is the level of quality that Americans demand, even when they are not paying.

From an earlier thread to keep in mind. A healthcare system can do only two of these three things:

1. Universality
2. Cost
3. Quality



Read the entire article at the link.

Yes, be sure to read more at the link.

Like this:

With monopoly buying power, the government could tighten up on health-care spending by dictating prices for services and drugs. But the government already has a lot of leverage. A big reason it does not clamp down now on health-care spending is that it is hard to do so politically.
Republicans have tarred the Affordable Care Act’s Medicare cuts as attacks on the cherished entitlement program. Doctors and hospitals have effectively resisted efforts to scale back the reimbursements they get from federal health programs. Small-town America does not want to give up expensive medical facilities that serve relatively few people in rural areas. A tax on medical device makers has been under bipartisan attack ever since it passed, as has the “Cadillac tax” on expensive health-insurance plans. When experts find that a treatment is too costly relative to the health benefits it provides, patients accustomed to receiving that treatment and medical organizations with a stake in the status quo rise up to demand it continue to be paid for.


A single-payer health-care system would face all of these political barriers to cost-saving reform and more. To realize the single-payer dream of coverage for all and big savings, medical industry players, including doctors, would likely have to get paid less and patients would have to accept different standards of access and comfort. There is little evidence most Americans are willing to accept such tradeoffs.
The goal still must be universal coverage and cost restraint. But no matter whether the government or some combination of parties is paying, that restraint will come slowly, with cuts to the rate of increase in medical costs that make the system more affordable over time. There are many options short of a disruptive takeover: the government can change how care is delivered, determine which treatments should be covered, control quality at hospitals, drive down drug costs and discourage high-cost health-care plans even while making the Obamacare system better at filling coverage gaps.

[Agent Zero]

I'm wondering why both OP's were designed to make the WaPo opEd look against single payor, when it isn't.

Explanation?

[Green Arrow]

What about states that are already close to bankruptcy, like Illinois?

Obviously they would have to fix their economies first.

[Green Arrow]

I'm wondering why both OP's were designed to make the WaPo opEd look against single payor, when it isn't.

Explanation?

Bias. There's a reason the other thread didn't even quote the WaPo article, and instead quoted a right-wing blog's summary of it. It's agenda pushing, the new normal.

[Peter1469]

Yes, be sure to read more at the link.

Like this:

With monopoly buying power, the government could tighten up on health-care spending by dictating prices for services and drugs. But the government already has a lot of leverage. A big reason it does not clamp down now on health-care spending is that it is hard to do so politically.
Republicans have tarred the Affordable Care Act’s Medicare cuts as attacks on the cherished entitlement program. Doctors and hospitals have effectively resisted efforts to scale back the reimbursements they get from federal health programs. Small-town America does not want to give up expensive medical facilities that serve relatively few people in rural areas. A tax on medical device makers has been under bipartisan attack ever since it passed, as has the “Cadillac tax” on expensive health-insurance plans. When experts find that a treatment is too costly relative to the health benefits it provides, patients accustomed to receiving that treatment and medical organizations with a stake in the status quo rise up to demand it continue to be paid for.


A single-payer health-care system would face all of these political barriers to cost-saving reform and more. To realize the single-payer dream of coverage for all and big savings, medical industry players, including doctors, would likely have to get paid less and patients would have to accept different standards of access and comfort. There is little evidence most Americans are willing to accept such tradeoffs.
The goal still must be universal coverage and cost restraint. But no matter whether the government or some combination of parties is paying, that restraint will come slowly, with cuts to the rate of increase in medical costs that make the system more affordable over time. There are many options short of a disruptive takeover: the government can change how care is delivered, determine which treatments should be covered, control quality at hospitals, drive down drug costs and discourage high-cost health-care plans even while making the Obamacare system better at filling coverage gaps.

The bolded is key.

[Peter1469]

Obviously they would have to fix their economies first.
Yes. How will they do that? I suppose they could shift their pensions to the Federal Pension Benefits Guarantee Company. They may get 30 cents on the dollar in their pension; but it would free up money for health care costs.

[Peter1469]

I'm wondering why both OP's were designed to make the WaPo opEd look against single payor, when it isn't.

Explanation?
Read the title. That should help.

Then see what two out of three things a health coverage system can do (can't do all three). That should also help.

[Green Arrow]

Yes. How will they do that? I suppose they could shift their pensions to the Federal Pension Benefits Guarantee Company. They may get 30 cents on the dollar in their pension; but it would free up money for health care costs.

I don't know how they would do that, I'm not an expert on Illinois' economic standing because I have zero power to change it.

[Peter1469]

I don't know how they would do that, I'm not an expert on Illinois' economic standing because I have zero power to change it.

Their budget is a mess. But their largest problem is massive unfunded pension liabilities. There is a thread on Illinois' possible bankruptcy here somewhere.

There is also a thread about the Cali plan for universal coverage- how it would exceed the entire state budget on its own.

[Green Arrow]

Their budget is a mess. But their largest problem is massive unfunded pension liabilities. There is a thread on Illinois' possible bankruptcy here somewhere.

There is also a thread about the Cali plan for universal coverage- how it would exceed the entire state budget on its own.

I commented in the latter one, IIRC.

[Agent Zero]

The bolded is key.

To realize the single-payer dream of coverage for all and big savings, medical industry players, including doctors, would likely have to get paid less and patients would have to accept different standards of access and comfort. There is little evidence most Americans are willing to accept such tradeoffs.

Sorry. I just found this looking for something else. Believe it or not, there are medical industry players, primarily including doctors, who still care more than the patient than when the next Mercedes shows up in their parking spot. Actually many more.

In addition, whether it's a Mercedes in that parking lot or a Kia owned by a general practitioner working in the slums of the city or a rural area in that parking lot, they're still held to the same standard of care.

[Common Sense]

All the doctors I know in Canada are quite wealthy. Is an average salary of $300,000 not great? Many specialists make in the $600K plus range.

[Common]

All the doctors I know in Canada are quite wealthy. Is an average salary of $300,000 not great? Many specialists make in the $600K plus range.
lol most US doctors wouldnt work for 300,000 family drs make more than that. My Podiatrist is also a vet in my VFW he works part time 3 days a week and makes a half a million a year

Surgeons make in the millions in the US, you have no idea about the US

[Common Sense]

lol most US doctors wouldnt work for 300,000 family drs make more than that. My Podiatrist is also a vet in my VFW he works part time 3 days a week and makes a half a million a year

Surgeons make in the millions in the US, you have no idea about the US

Bullshit. Salaries vary by state, but your claim is inaccurate.


http://time.com/4408807/surgeon-salary-how-much-doctors-make/

Using a third-party online collection website, Medscape surveyed 24,216 physicians across 25 specialties from Feb. 1 to 17, 2012. Doctors' earnings ranged from about $156,000 a year for pediatricians to about $315,000 for radiologists and orthopedic surgeons. The highest earners — orthopedic surgeons and radiologists — were the same as last year, followed by cardiologists who earned $314,000 and anesthesiologists who made $309,000.

[Peter1469]

Sorry. I just found this looking for something else. Believe it or not, there are medical industry players, primarily including doctors, who still care more than the patient than when the next Mercedes shows up in their parking spot. Actually many more.

In addition, whether it's a Mercedes in that parking lot or a Kia owned by a general practitioner working in the slums of the city or a rural area in that parking lot, they're still held to the same standard of care.


The standard of care is not so gold plated in single payer systems. That is why the US will suck at it.

[Agent Zero]

The standard of care is not so gold plated in single payer systems. That is why the US will suck at it.
The VA health care delivery system has been called the best there is. It's single payor. Be sure to read the following before the "But scandal!" cries come out.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2014/june/va-care-still-the-best-care-anywhere

[Peter1469]

The VA health care delivery system has been called the best there is. It's single payor. Be sure to read the following before the "But scandal!" cries come out.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2014/june/va-care-still-the-best-care-anywhere

VA care is good in some places, poor in others, and a death trap in some.

[Captain Obvious]

VA, Medicare and the ACA are great preludes to what single payer in this nation would be like.

All three punish the provider and the patient by cutting coverage and access to healthcare while Big Healthcare continues to reap in profits at staggering rates.

VA is a national embarrassment.

Why would anyone think putting coverage entirely into the hands of gubmint would be a good idea?

Big Healthcare and the low information voter are the only two I can think of. That and bought-and-paid-for establishment representatives.

[Common Sense]

VA, Medicare and the ACA are great preludes to what single payer in this nation would be like.

All three punish the provider and the patient by cutting coverage and access to healthcare while Big Healthcare continues to reap in profits at staggering rates.

VA is a national embarrassment.

Why would anyone think putting coverage entirely into the hands of gubmint would be a good idea?

Big Healthcare and the low information voter are the only two I can think of. That and bought-and-paid-for establishment representatives.

The VA and single payer are not similar. The government runs VA hospitals. The government doesn't run hospitals in a single payer system.

Instead of putting insurance in a public trust with oversight and the ability to change it through the democratic process, you put your trust in companies who's only goal is to make money and to deny coverage if possible.

[Captain Obvious]

The VA and single payer are not similar. The government runs VA hospitals. The government doesn't run hospitals in a single payer system.

Instead of putting insurance in a public trust with oversight and the ability to change it through the democratic process, you put your trust in companies who's only goal is to make money and to deny coverage if possible.

Your point is noted but not really relevant to the point I made.

Commercial insurance companies, if that's what your latter point is regarding, are the primary reason providers who stay afloat can.

My payer mix is roughly two thirds Care/Caid, 20% commercial and 10% private pay, common in the industry. If there was a shift of 20% of all business from commercial to Caid I'd close my doors soon as I would expect most providers would, all things considered.

Medicare/caid is funded by taxes, commercial insurances are for the most part free market, funded by working people, businesses who compete for labor talent by offering them less than shit healthcare coverage.

There's a common thread here as to what works and what doesn't, can you find it?

[Common Sense]

Your point is noted but not really relevant to the point I made.

Commercial insurance companies, if that's what your latter point is regarding, are the primary reason providers who stay afloat can.

My payer mix is roughly two thirds Care/Caid, 20% commercial and 10% private pay, common in the industry. If there was a shift of 20% of all business from commercial to Caid I'd close my doors soon as I would expect most providers would, all things considered.

Medicare/caid is funded by taxes, commercial insurances are for the most part free market, funded by working people, businesses who compete for labor talent by offering them less than shit healthcare coverage.

There's a common thread here as to what works and what doesn't, can you find it?

My point is very important. Lots of misinformed people are under the impression that single payer is like the VA. That couldn't be further from the truth.

[Captain Obvious]

My point is very important. Lots of misinformed people are under the impression that single payer is like the VA. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Single payer isn't like anything here right now, it doesn't and never existed.

That's why it's not very relevant to my point which was, look at the track records of what our magnificent gubmint has done with what it's had so far.

[del]

single payer isn't relevant to a thread about single payer.


cool

[Peter1469]

My point is very important. Lots of misinformed people are under the impression that single payer is like the VA. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Single payer in the US would lead to deficit spending. Americans demand much more out of their health care than the rest of the world.

[Captain Obvious]

Single payer in the US would lead to deficit spending. Americans demand much more out of their health care than the rest of the world.

The GOP will be equally guilty of deficit spending, it's part of the downfall of the failed democracy experiment.

Short term political agendas to garner votes > long term national interests

[Peter1469]

The GOP will be equally guilty of deficit spending, it's part of the downfall of the failed democracy experiment.

Short term political agendas to garner votes > long term national interests

True, the GOP plan relies less on taxes and more on deficit spending. It is a farce.

[Green Arrow]

The GOP will be equally guilty of deficit spending, it's part of the downfall of the failed democracy experiment.

Short term political agendas to garner votes > long term national interests

We've never had democracy.

[Captain Obvious]

We've never had democracy.

Or a reasonable facsimile of, republic notwithstanding.

[Kalkin]

It would be doable if we broke it up state-by-state. Large states like California would have to further decentralize by county, but smaller states like Wyoming could easily manage it at the state level.

Better yet, just let each state's voters determine to what degree the government is involved in healthcare, or even if it should be at all.

[Green Arrow]

Single payer isn't like anything here right now, it doesn't and never existed.

That's why it's not very relevant to my point which was, look at the track records of what our magnificent gubmint has done with what it's had so far.
That's a ridiculous argument, no offense. The government has done plenty of things well, at all levels. The fact that some of those same things are now done poorly or other things are done poorly doesn't mean anything and everything the government does is done poorly, nor does it mean the things done poorly are not capable of being done well. This "everything government does is evil and everything it touches turns to ash and woe" thing is a hyperbolic meme, not reality.

[Kalkin]

Amazing. Countries like Canada and Germany are perfectly able to do it, but it's too hard for the US? Give me a break.
The US would have no problem doing it if everyone wanted to. The problem for the left is that too many people simply disagree with their vision. Polls may suggest otherwise, but reality tells a different story.

[Peter1469]

Want quality health care on the cheap? (https://ramusa.org/)

Those not paying don't get single rooms with nice wood floors and cable TV and free wifi like I do.

[Captain Obvious]

That's a ridiculous argument, no offense. The government has done plenty of things well, at all levels. The fact that some of those same things are now done poorly or other things are done poorly doesn't mean anything and everything the government does is done poorly, nor does it mean the things done poorly are not capable of being done well. This "everything government does is evil and everything it touches turns to ash and woe" thing is a hyperbolic meme, not reality.

You kind of rambled with that a little but that's ok.

So do you believe in this age of shrinking coverage and increasing Big Healthcare profits, in this age of budget cuts with increased entitlement and military spending and deficits, crony capitalism, establishment politics, a track record of failed VA, Care/Caid programs - you believe that handing the keys over to this institution will reap positive results?

I would like to see your design on how this could possibly be successful.

[Green Arrow]

You kind of rambled with that a little but that's ok.

So do you believe in this age of shrinking coverage and increasing Big Healthcare profits, in this age of budget cuts with increased entitlement and military spending and deficits, crony capitalism, establishment politics, a track record of failed VA, Care/Caid programs - you believe that handing the keys over to this institution will reap positive results?

I would like to see your design on how this could possibly be successful.

With single-payer Big Healthcare is eliminated from the equation. And obviously this can't happen in a vacuum, as I've said before on this topic, so we'd have to fix our other issues too.

[Kalkin]

With single-payer Big Healthcare is eliminated from the equation.
You'd just replace one big middleman, big ins, with another, big gov. The former wants to make profits and should be a voluntary decision by the consumer, the latter has a history of bureaucratic excess/waste/control and will force you to use their system. I prefer the choice element that the former provides.
If the government can come up with a plan that's so good that people will voluntarily join/fund it, I'd be okay with that.

[Green Arrow]

You'd just replace one big middleman, big ins, with another, big gov. The former wants to make profits and should be a voluntary decision by the consumer, the latter has a history of bureaucratic excess/waste/control and will force you to use their system. I prefer the choice element that the former provides.
If the government can come up with a plan that's so good that people will voluntarily join/fund it, I'd be okay with that.

If you think insurance companies don't have bureaucratic excess/waste/control, I have some prime beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.

[Captain Obvious]

With single-payer Big Healthcare is eliminated from the equation. And obviously this can't happen in a vacuum, as I've said before on this topic, so we'd have to fix our other issues too.

That's a big leap of faith.

I don't have confidence in the system nor the participants that it is possible.

[Green Arrow]

That's a big leap of faith.

I don't have confidence in the system nor the participants that it is possible.

Not really, it's logic. If you eliminate the insurance industry it's gone, that's the whole point of single-payer.

[Captain Obvious]

Not really, it's logic. If you eliminate the insurance industry it's gone, that's the whole point of single-payer.

That makes no sense.

Insurers and Big Pharma/Healthcare are two totally different and independent industries.

[Green Arrow]

That makes no sense.

Insurers and Big Pharma/Healthcare are two totally different and independent industries.
You're right, sorry, I misread what you said.

[Kalkin]

If you think insurance companies don't have bureaucratic excess/waste/control, I have some prime beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Name an insurance company that's $20,000,000,000,000 in debt and we can make a valid comparison. Regardless, the element of choice is the real difference.

[Kalkin]

Not really, it's logic. If you eliminate the insurance industry it's gone, that's the whole point of single-payer.
Why not repeal government insurance mandates and let citizens decide whether or not to purchase their products? If the people dislike the service/bureaucracy, they can stop paying into it. Problem solved.

[Green Arrow]

Name an insurance company that's $20,000,000,000,000 in debt and we can make a valid comparison. Regardless, the element of choice is the real difference.

You can't move the goalposts. No company, regardless of industry, is even capable of going $20 trillion in debt because they don't have the size and scope of government. It doesn't mean valid comparisons can't be made.

[Kalkin]

You can't move the goalposts. No company, regardless of industry, is even capable of going $20 trillion in debt because they don't have the size and scope of government. It doesn't mean valid comparisons can't be made.
Like I said, that's really not the fundamental point. Being able to choose whether or not you want participate is. Do you have any thoughts on that aspect?

[The Xl]

Corporate and single payer are both financial nightmares. Free market or bust. If that's ever tried and fails, then we're in trouble.

[Common Sense]

Corporate and single payer are both financial nightmares. Free market or bust. If that's ever tried and fails, then we're in trouble.

What's the difference between corporate and free market in your opinion?

[Green Arrow]

Like I said, that's really not the fundamental point. Being able to choose whether or not you want participate is. Do you have any thoughts on that aspect?

I say go for it. In my single-payer system, you're free to exit your state from the system at any time, it would do nothing to impact the system because it would be state-to-state.

[Green Arrow]

Corporate and single payer are both financial nightmares.

Not if you do it right.

[Kalkin]

I say go for it. In my single-payer system, you're free to exit your state from the system at any time, it would do nothing to impact the system because it would be state-to-state.
I'd be okay with that. Ideally, free people could opt out of funding and participation without moving, though. Would you support that level of free choice?

[The Xl]

What's the difference between corporate and free market in your opinion?

pseudo monopolies.

[Common Sense]

pseudo monopolies.

I can see an argument for that. However, what's to stop these corporations from doing the same in a truly free market?

[Kalkin]

I can see an argument for that. However, what's to stop these corporations from doing the same in a truly free market?

Consumer freedom.

[Common Sense]

Consumer freedom.

That hasn't stopped monopolies in the past.

[The Xl]

I can see an argument for that. However, what's to stop these corporations from doing the same in a truly free market?

Competition, ideally. And more choices.

[Common Sense]

Competition, ideally. And more choices.

Yet history has shown that unchecked corporate entities have formed monopolies.

[The Xl]

Yet history has shown that unchecked corporate entities have formed monopolies.

Perhaps, but I'd take my chances with more choices than less choices. We haven't even tried it yet. I'm not against a safety net for the truly poor, either.

[Kalkin]

That hasn't stopped monopolies in the past.
Prove it.