> Nobody is saying that a single payer system or tightly regulated multi-payer system hasn't worked anywhere or can't work in the US. Everyone is arguing about

> Nobody is saying that a single payer system or tightly regulated multi-payer system hasn't worked anywhere or can't work in the US. Everyone is arguing about the specific implementation because those are the details that make or break it. They are certainly arguing that such systems won't be effective in ths US in this discussion: > Many on the left despise mergers and consolidation, and anything that has a hint of monopoly power. Except when it comes to government, education, and healthcare! Doesn’t a single centralized monopoly providing everyone’s healthcare seem like a bad idea? Why is it so bad in business and so good for health? > That is very bad reasoning. Most things don't get cheaper when they get nationalized. There is some evidence healthcare may be different in this regard, but the point is: costs are not invariant under nationalization. > We can't provide everyone with all the healthcare that they should get. There are never going to be enough doctors, equipment or hospitals. Sickness is literally an endless source of suffering and we all die of something - there cannot be enough medical assistance to deal with everything even if we devote everything we have to the healthcare industry. Rationing access to healthcare by people's economic contribution to society is just as fair as any other sort of rationing you care to come up with. > There aren’t sufficient amount of people willing to do the highly undesirable work of caring for sick, contagious, handicapped, possibly dangerous people without money as the end goal.