14 ms·

This. I'm amazed that no one the liberal side of single payer has made this argument: single payer would help create more small businesses.

luckydata 7y ago
The argument has been made countless times, the press just doesn't seem to want to talk about it.
downrightmike 7y ago
Which is what we need, because medium to large businesses are cutting head count and offshoring.
akhilcacharya 7y ago
They do, even Bernie says it. http://fortune.com/2017/08/21/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-bill-health-care-insurance/ http://fortune.com/2017/08/21/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-al...
bwanab 7y ago
This argument has been made before e.g.: http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-pro-business-argument-for-single-payer-healthcare/ http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-pro-business-ar...
whamlastxmas 7y ago
It's too easy to find facts and figures to support either side of the argument and I think the left finds a better argument in it simply being a human right and the moral thing to do, neither of which are easily refuted.
- weberc2 7y ago
  > neither of which are easily refuted. I don't agree or disagree with the claims, but they're not easily refuted because they're not falsifiable. They amount to "we should do this because I think it's better". It's not persuasive. A better argument would be, "We all want to take care of poor people and improve our economy--we can do both and here is the data". Of course there will still be lots of friction and lobbying and so on, but at least it's a compelling argument.
  - toiletfuneral 7y ago
    Sorry but can you clarify; are you saying there does not exist a moral argument for changing our healthcare systems unless it also benefits capital? Or are you saying your observations of this country's value system leads you to believe that only economic arguments would be effective?
- galaxyLogic 7y ago
  > It's too easy to find facts and figures to support either side of the argument I don't think it is too easy, to find such facts and figures. Can you give us some links to them?
rossdavidh 7y ago
1) it has been made, but.. 2) it doesn't naturally appeal to most people on the left, and everyone else knows it, so it comes off as unmotivating to the left and insincere to everyone else. None of which means it isn't true (it is), or that it isn't important (it is), but that's why it doesn't get used as an argument very much.
- galaxyLogic 7y ago
  Makes me think that the "right" is insincere, they say they are "pro-business" but really they are only "pro BIG business". How can we know? Because if they were pro small business they would be pro universal healthcare, so that it would be easy to start your own business.
  - fwip 7y ago
    Going even further: if you want to support small businesses, let's establish UBI.
    - rossdavidh 7y ago
      I know a lot of small business owners who were only able to strike out "on their own"...because their spouse worked for a large corporation (or the government). They could afford to spend a few years getting it off the ground, supported by the family's other income (and health insurance). So, I suspect you're correct on this.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    The only thing this demonstrates is the sheer idiocy of dividing ideas by "sides" or party lines. Real life has complex interactions that don't get captured by this. I suspect the "right" is actually sincere. But it so happens that ideas giving more power to private businesses tend to disproportionally benefit larger businesses over the smaller ones (this is a natural advantage of having scale and capital). The ideas surgically targeted to benefit smaller businesses? The "targeted" aspect tends to pattern-match to the "left", so they get rejected. The end result looks like the "right" was dishonest, but IMO it's just the ass-backwards stupid fixation on ideology over problem solving that causes this. And the same thing applies to the "left".
scarejunba 7y ago
Democrat voters don't care about that. Edit: it's true. If you are a democrat candidate and this is the angle you push, it's not going to work. But you already know that.
arcticbull 7y ago
I've been working in my little corner of the world to re-frame the conversation. Socializing medicine isn't about restricting your freedom to choose your physician, it's the freedom from. Freedom from fear of losing your job, freedom from fear of having to change your doctor if you do, freedom to pick any doctor (they're all in-network), freedom from fear of starting a new business, freedom from fear of death and bankruptcy if anything goes wrong -- and it does, to all of us, eventually. Socialized medicine is freedom, and private medicine just isn't.
- sologoub 7y ago
  This. Especially - freedom to pick any doctor as they are all in-network. Family had experience with California PCIP insurance (bridge for pre-existing condition after ACA was voted in, but before it took effect). The PCIP was amazing - PPO-like benefits, using MediCare network (close to 100% doctors take it) and quality services. Of course, unfortunately, the ACA/exchange provided policies are nowhere close to how good PCIP was. If we could get the PCIP-like option, it would truly change lives for the better.
  - mises 7y ago
    > freedom to pick any doctor Any doctor? Doctors can take so many patients. Though it may benefit a large number of people, some may end up worse. Those who have the best doctors currently (because they can pay) may no longer be able to have those doctors.
    - beat 7y ago
      You realize that's a terrible argument, right?
      - mises 7y ago
        Ok, why? I'm more than open to being convinced otherwise; I'd love to think no one would be harmed.
dorchadas 7y ago
I've personally been trying to push this for years. About how much freedom would be had if we weren't basically in slavery to our job-granted insurance. I've found the right-wing people in my family don't like to hear it...
SubiculumCode 7y ago
They are so focused on helping those without they forget the powerful argument that small business has to do part time shennanigans to avoid paying healthcare costs
beat 7y ago
As a liberal, this sort of thing drives me nuts. It's like my side has completely ceded the ground of both economic liberty and economic opportunity to conservatives, because neoliberalism has made "capitalism" such a dirty word on the left. As liberals, we should own the conversation about small business. Sigh. Being trapped as the vassal of a giant corporation just to not-die is in direct opposition to the very concept of liberty. Being able to quit your job and create your own business is an essential freedom. But liberal politicians are unwilling to market that way, and so the neoliberal political class gets to argue for the preservation of a system that benefits the wealthy and the corporate at the expense of the liberty (and wallets!) of ordinary people as the "free market". Feh.
- jwbwater 7y ago
  Stop being so rational and go yell at some conservatives.
gamblor956 7y ago
I'm amazed that no one the liberal side of single payer has made this argument: single payer would help create more small businesses. This argument has in fact been made by a great many liberals and moderates, many times, going back to Clinton's (failed) attempt to pass a single-payer health system.
jwbwater 7y ago
How about someone on the conservative, rah rah free-markets will solve all our problems, side? Oh yeah, they're getting campaign contributions from big business.

luckydata 7y ago

The argument has been made countless times, the press just doesn't seem to want to talk about it.

downrightmike 7y ago

Which is what we need, because medium to large businesses are cutting head count and offshoring.

akhilcacharya 7y ago

They do, even Bernie says it. http://fortune.com/2017/08/21/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-bill-health-care-insurance/ http://fortune.com/2017/08/21/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-al...

bwanab 7y ago

This argument has been made before e.g.: http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-pro-business-argument-for-single-payer-healthcare/ http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-pro-business-ar...

whamlastxmas 7y ago

It's too easy to find facts and figures to support either side of the argument and I think the left finds a better argument in it simply being a human right and the moral thing to do, neither of which are easily refuted.

weberc2 7y ago
> neither of which are easily refuted. I don't agree or disagree with the claims, but they're not easily refuted because they're not falsifiable. They amount to "we should do this because I think it's better". It's not persuasive. A better argument would be, "We all want to take care of poor people and improve our economy--we can do both and here is the data". Of course there will still be lots of friction and lobbying and so on, but at least it's a compelling argument.
- toiletfuneral 7y ago
  Sorry but can you clarify; are you saying there does not exist a moral argument for changing our healthcare systems unless it also benefits capital? Or are you saying your observations of this country's value system leads you to believe that only economic arguments would be effective?
galaxyLogic 7y ago
> It's too easy to find facts and figures to support either side of the argument I don't think it is too easy, to find such facts and figures. Can you give us some links to them?

rossdavidh 7y ago

1) it has been made, but.. 2) it doesn't naturally appeal to most people on the left, and everyone else knows it, so it comes off as unmotivating to the left and insincere to everyone else. None of which means it isn't true (it is), or that it isn't important (it is), but that's why it doesn't get used as an argument very much.

galaxyLogic 7y ago
Makes me think that the "right" is insincere, they say they are "pro-business" but really they are only "pro BIG business". How can we know? Because if they were pro small business they would be pro universal healthcare, so that it would be easy to start your own business.
- fwip 7y ago
  Going even further: if you want to support small businesses, let's establish UBI.
  - rossdavidh 7y ago
    I know a lot of small business owners who were only able to strike out "on their own"...because their spouse worked for a large corporation (or the government). They could afford to spend a few years getting it off the ground, supported by the family's other income (and health insurance). So, I suspect you're correct on this.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  The only thing this demonstrates is the sheer idiocy of dividing ideas by "sides" or party lines. Real life has complex interactions that don't get captured by this. I suspect the "right" is actually sincere. But it so happens that ideas giving more power to private businesses tend to disproportionally benefit larger businesses over the smaller ones (this is a natural advantage of having scale and capital). The ideas surgically targeted to benefit smaller businesses? The "targeted" aspect tends to pattern-match to the "left", so they get rejected. The end result looks like the "right" was dishonest, but IMO it's just the ass-backwards stupid fixation on ideology over problem solving that causes this. And the same thing applies to the "left".

scarejunba 7y ago

Democrat voters don't care about that. Edit: it's true. If you are a democrat candidate and this is the angle you push, it's not going to work. But you already know that.

arcticbull 7y ago

I've been working in my little corner of the world to re-frame the conversation. Socializing medicine isn't about restricting your freedom to choose your physician, it's the freedom from. Freedom from fear of losing your job, freedom from fear of having to change your doctor if you do, freedom to pick any doctor (they're all in-network), freedom from fear of starting a new business, freedom from fear of death and bankruptcy if anything goes wrong -- and it does, to all of us, eventually. Socialized medicine is freedom, and private medicine just isn't.

sologoub 7y ago
This. Especially - freedom to pick any doctor as they are all in-network. Family had experience with California PCIP insurance (bridge for pre-existing condition after ACA was voted in, but before it took effect). The PCIP was amazing - PPO-like benefits, using MediCare network (close to 100% doctors take it) and quality services. Of course, unfortunately, the ACA/exchange provided policies are nowhere close to how good PCIP was. If we could get the PCIP-like option, it would truly change lives for the better.
- mises 7y ago
  > freedom to pick any doctor Any doctor? Doctors can take so many patients. Though it may benefit a large number of people, some may end up worse. Those who have the best doctors currently (because they can pay) may no longer be able to have those doctors.
  - beat 7y ago
    You realize that's a terrible argument, right?
    - mises 7y ago
      Ok, why? I'm more than open to being convinced otherwise; I'd love to think no one would be harmed.

dorchadas 7y ago

I've personally been trying to push this for years. About how much freedom would be had if we weren't basically in slavery to our job-granted insurance. I've found the right-wing people in my family don't like to hear it...

SubiculumCode 7y ago

They are so focused on helping those without they forget the powerful argument that small business has to do part time shennanigans to avoid paying healthcare costs

beat 7y ago

As a liberal, this sort of thing drives me nuts. It's like my side has completely ceded the ground of both economic liberty and economic opportunity to conservatives, because neoliberalism has made "capitalism" such a dirty word on the left. As liberals, we should own the conversation about small business. Sigh. Being trapped as the vassal of a giant corporation just to not-die is in direct opposition to the very concept of liberty. Being able to quit your job and create your own business is an essential freedom. But liberal politicians are unwilling to market that way, and so the neoliberal political class gets to argue for the preservation of a system that benefits the wealthy and the corporate at the expense of the liberty (and wallets!) of ordinary people as the "free market". Feh.

jwbwater 7y ago
Stop being so rational and go yell at some conservatives.

gamblor956 7y ago

I'm amazed that no one the liberal side of single payer has made this argument: single payer would help create more small businesses. This argument has in fact been made by a great many liberals and moderates, many times, going back to Clinton's (failed) attempt to pass a single-payer health system.

jwbwater 7y ago

How about someone on the conservative, rah rah free-markets will solve all our problems, side? Oh yeah, they're getting campaign contributions from big business.