3 ms·
> It thus makes no sense to reject single-payer on the grounds that it would require higher tax revenues. That’s true, of course, but it’s an irrelevant objecti
by leepowers 9y ago
> It thus makes no sense to reject single-payer on the grounds that it would require higher tax revenues. That’s true, of course, but it’s an irrelevant objection.
> The most important source of cost savings under single-payer is that large government entities are able to negotiate much more favorable terms with service providers.
I agree these objections are not relevant for the overall system. But certain individuals and groups within the current system will get screwed.
The wealthy and upper middle-class will oppose any tax increases, as it will decrease their take-home income. Plus the resentment of having to pay for someone else (the moochers).
Providers will oppose any haircut that comes with single-payer rates and price controls. No more millionaire doctors, specialists, or dentists.
And of course the overhead of health insurance middle-men and the huge administrative bureaucracy costs.
This is the crux of the problem. We could have a reasonably good system for everyone. But it requires a lot of people with heavily vested interests into a less ideal situation.
- luxuryballs 9y agoYeah, and we ban people from public roads for bad behavior. Will we ban people from public healthcare for bad health choices? Do we really want to give the government that kind of exclusive control over a service while giving up control of our bodies?
- ML_God 9y agoThere are limited resources, somebody has to make hard decisions - e.g. if a given patient must live or die. Is a privately owned insurance company a better choice maker, than the government in this case?
- coredog64 9y agoSmokers typically exhibit compressed mortality. Yes, they die younger than non-smokers, and yes, they have health issues. But the health issues are typically of the sort that get deadly in short order and so actually save money.
- camiller 9y agoNot sure how fighting lung cancer for three years with multiple rounds of chemo and radiation saves money....
- ML_God 9y agoIs it a bad thing to have millionaire doctors, specialists or dentists? Should ideally everybody be poor? Or is wealth reserved for celebrities and members of a few special families? Healthcare is important and it's OK to spend a ton of money on it. Decreasing the US expenses on healthcare will have a global negative impact on life expectancy, quality of life and medical research, as the US is effectively subsidizing healthcare in all other countries. That's perfectly fine as the rest of the world uses the dollar to trade and as reserve currency, subsidizing the US government and economy.