3 ms·
Can't speak for the poster, but I live in the Bay Area, and also would happily pay more in taxes for this to happen. That's because I think long-term, single-p
by __jal 10y ago
Can't speak for the poster, but I live in the Bay Area, and also would happily pay more in taxes for this to happen.
That's because I think long-term, single-payer is the only sensible way to handle health care. We have (the US has) a truly screwed up healthcare system that (nearly) everyone acknowledges is inefficient, too expensive, wasteful and less effective than it could be. Looking at other countries, this is obvious.
Given the money involved, getting to single-payer will be a long-term project; now even longer, to clean up the mess currently being made. It'll involve more fighting, take longer, and be a more expensive transition than anyone likes.
Given all that, we have to start somewhere. I'm happy to start in my state, even though I have great (employer-provided) healthcare, and could easily pay for my own if I didn't.
There's also the aspect of doing the right thing, even at personal cost. I think single-payer is the right thing to do.
So that's why.
- dx034 10y agoIt's certainly better than the current way, but single payer is not the only way. Look at Germany for example, where the government sets minimum coverage and the premium (in a band as a % of the salary which the state will pay if you don't earn enough), but coverage is then provided by not-for-profit entities. This allows some competition by eliminating inefficient providers while making sure that everyone receives the same treatment. I think such a system would work much better for the US as it's easier for the state to build such a framework than to come up with health care for everyone. The NHS (UKs single payer health provider) is the biggest employer in the state, which gives you some indication on how complex it is to provide universal healthcare for everyone.