5 ms·

> (They really hated it. Senator Cornyn of Texas said it was "a step down the road to a single-payer, government-run health care system"). President Bush promis

> (They really hated it. Senator Cornyn of Texas said it was "a step down the road to a single-payer, government-run health care system"). President Bush promised a veto. I don't understand why Republicans have such a raging hard-on against universal healthcare. Pretty much every country that has implemented such a program agrees it is a Good Thing and worth funding through new taxes.

markdown 12y ago
> I don't understand why... If American politicians sported their sponsors logos like nascar drivers do, things would become much clearer.
- tptacek 12y ago
  The health care industry contributes substantially to both parties, even though the Democratic party supports single-payer. They contributed more to the GOP in the 2000s, but the GOP controlled the government for most of that time and held the presidency. Starting in 2008, health care resumed contributing more to the Democrats, as they did at the start of the Clinton administration. The idea that politicians assume public policy positions because they're captured by donors is sometimes true, but it's incorrect as often as not.
  - markdown 12y ago
    Parties don't matter, people do. They only need to contribute to a few key people to influence lawmaking. A significant number of politicians (of both parties) will oppose single-payer on principle. A significant number will oppose it based on what they think their electorate wants. Some will vote for single-payer on principle. And some are on the fence or just don't care. Lobbyists are paid big money to ferret out these few and influence them.
deciplex 12y ago
Don't try too hard to analyze the Republican platform, as it's mostly just an assortment of special interests without any real coherent underlying ideology, and don't fool yourself into thinking a single Senator or Congressman is capable of independent thought.
krapp 12y ago
Primarily, because universal healthcare involves greater government expenditure and complexity, and Republicans consider both the extra cost and regulation an assault on capitalism and states' rights. This is the party which is politically beholden to a man who famously said he wanted to shrink government down to the size that it can be drowned in a bathtub[1], after all. Also, because it smacks of socialism, and socialism is considered a moral evil that creates an underclass of lazy underachievers who don't understand the dignity of a hard day's work and only want to feed at the government trough. And of course by implication vote for the other party. It's probably also worth pointing out that it being the way things are done in Europe and elsewhere only makes it even more offensive, because Republicans believe in American exceptionalism - which implies at its core that our way is Just Better, and everyone else is Just Worse. [1]https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist tldr; money, politics and xenophobia.
tptacek 12y ago
I'm a Democrat and generally in favor of state-sponsored universal health care, but unlike other commenters on this subthread, I don't have a hard time seeing the issue Republicans have with single-payer healthcare. Single-payer essentially nationalizes more than fifteen percent of the US economy (by dollars). It would more or less make every doctor, nurse, and technician an employee of the US government. But much more importantly than that, it would remove broad market price discovery from allocation of medical services. Instead of prices rising or falling to match demand from actual consumers, things would cost what a system of bureaucracies would say they cost. Republicans aren't simply concerned about single-payer because they oppose entitlements (although they do). They also have a valid concern that single-payer would distort and degrade the health care system. (For what it's worth, I like the balance Obamacare tries to strike, and support anything that puts us further along down the road to the Swiss system of health care).
- gradstudent 12y ago
  > Single-payer essentially nationalizes more than fifteen percent of the US economy (by dollars). It would more or less make every doctor, nurse, and technician an employee of the US government. But much more importantly than that, it would remove broad market price discovery from allocation of medical services. Instead of prices rising or falling to match demand from actual consumers, things would cost what a system of bureaucracies would say they cost Eh? Universal healthcare doesn't mean price regulation. The price signals are still there but you now have a very large public buyer able to negotiate prices with very big private suppliers. How is that not better than the current system where large numbers of citizens cannot afford adequate healthcare and big companies can extort whatever price they want out of those seeking access to life-saving drugs? > They also have a valid concern that single-payer would distort and degrade the health care system. Degrade how? Universal healthcare can still work with e.g. privately-run hospitals and clinics. You don't need the government to hire all the medical practitioners; just pay for the cost of treatment.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    If there's a single federal buyer paying for 90+% of the market (look how much of the market for seniors Medicare covers), it's hard to see how the price signals continue to work the same way. The (slow, error-prone) political process is engaged in every buying decision. Already you can see that changes in the way Medicare reimburses and measures outcomes have impacts on the way services are delivered today, and Medicare is just a fraction of the overall market for health care in the US. The federal government doesn't hire all the practitioners. They just fix all the prices. At any rate, there's a difference between disagreeing with an argument and pretending that it doesn't exist, as other comments on this thread did. (I am in part assuming the mantel of the GOP argument against single-payer here; I prefer the Swiss system to the NHS, but unlike most Republicans I strongly believed that a national solution was needed for health insurance and financing.)

markdown 12y ago

> I don't understand why... If American politicians sported their sponsors logos like nascar drivers do, things would become much clearer.

tptacek 12y ago
The health care industry contributes substantially to both parties, even though the Democratic party supports single-payer. They contributed more to the GOP in the 2000s, but the GOP controlled the government for most of that time and held the presidency. Starting in 2008, health care resumed contributing more to the Democrats, as they did at the start of the Clinton administration. The idea that politicians assume public policy positions because they're captured by donors is sometimes true, but it's incorrect as often as not.
- markdown 12y ago
  Parties don't matter, people do. They only need to contribute to a few key people to influence lawmaking. A significant number of politicians (of both parties) will oppose single-payer on principle. A significant number will oppose it based on what they think their electorate wants. Some will vote for single-payer on principle. And some are on the fence or just don't care. Lobbyists are paid big money to ferret out these few and influence them.

deciplex 12y ago

Don't try too hard to analyze the Republican platform, as it's mostly just an assortment of special interests without any real coherent underlying ideology, and don't fool yourself into thinking a single Senator or Congressman is capable of independent thought.

krapp 12y ago

Primarily, because universal healthcare involves greater government expenditure and complexity, and Republicans consider both the extra cost and regulation an assault on capitalism and states' rights. This is the party which is politically beholden to a man who famously said he wanted to shrink government down to the size that it can be drowned in a bathtub[1], after all. Also, because it smacks of socialism, and socialism is considered a moral evil that creates an underclass of lazy underachievers who don't understand the dignity of a hard day's work and only want to feed at the government trough. And of course by implication vote for the other party. It's probably also worth pointing out that it being the way things are done in Europe and elsewhere only makes it even more offensive, because Republicans believe in American exceptionalism - which implies at its core that our way is Just Better, and everyone else is Just Worse. [1]https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist tldr; money, politics and xenophobia.

tptacek 12y ago

I'm a Democrat and generally in favor of state-sponsored universal health care, but unlike other commenters on this subthread, I don't have a hard time seeing the issue Republicans have with single-payer healthcare. Single-payer essentially nationalizes more than fifteen percent of the US economy (by dollars). It would more or less make every doctor, nurse, and technician an employee of the US government. But much more importantly than that, it would remove broad market price discovery from allocation of medical services. Instead of prices rising or falling to match demand from actual consumers, things would cost what a system of bureaucracies would say they cost. Republicans aren't simply concerned about single-payer because they oppose entitlements (although they do). They also have a valid concern that single-payer would distort and degrade the health care system. (For what it's worth, I like the balance Obamacare tries to strike, and support anything that puts us further along down the road to the Swiss system of health care).

gradstudent 12y ago
> Single-payer essentially nationalizes more than fifteen percent of the US economy (by dollars). It would more or less make every doctor, nurse, and technician an employee of the US government. But much more importantly than that, it would remove broad market price discovery from allocation of medical services. Instead of prices rising or falling to match demand from actual consumers, things would cost what a system of bureaucracies would say they cost Eh? Universal healthcare doesn't mean price regulation. The price signals are still there but you now have a very large public buyer able to negotiate prices with very big private suppliers. How is that not better than the current system where large numbers of citizens cannot afford adequate healthcare and big companies can extort whatever price they want out of those seeking access to life-saving drugs? > They also have a valid concern that single-payer would distort and degrade the health care system. Degrade how? Universal healthcare can still work with e.g. privately-run hospitals and clinics. You don't need the government to hire all the medical practitioners; just pay for the cost of treatment.
- tptacek 12y ago
  If there's a single federal buyer paying for 90+% of the market (look how much of the market for seniors Medicare covers), it's hard to see how the price signals continue to work the same way. The (slow, error-prone) political process is engaged in every buying decision. Already you can see that changes in the way Medicare reimburses and measures outcomes have impacts on the way services are delivered today, and Medicare is just a fraction of the overall market for health care in the US. The federal government doesn't hire all the practitioners. They just fix all the prices. At any rate, there's a difference between disagreeing with an argument and pretending that it doesn't exist, as other comments on this thread did. (I am in part assuming the mantel of the GOP argument against single-payer here; I prefer the Swiss system to the NHS, but unlike most Republicans I strongly believed that a national solution was needed for health insurance and financing.)