I'd like to take the time to address your point here.
JohnnyPhatsaqs said:
Anecdotal
So what happens down the line, in this single payer bullshit, when we can't afford it anymore. The money has to come from somewhere.
It may surprise you to learn that our government already spends a higher percentage of its revenue on healthcare than France, Canada, Sweden, the UK, and many other countries that do have single-payer healthcare systems. When you add in the private sector money that is spent on healthcare, our costs per capita are double that of many single-payer countries. This is 100% FACT.
It's true that the money has to come from somewhere, but that's true of everything the government does. The answer is, as always: it comes from tax revenue. There is more than enough coming in to pay for a single-payer system. We ALREADY spend more than a single-payer system would cost. Furthermore, a single-payer system would free up all that private sector money that currently goes towards premiums and deductibles.
I realize that the debate in America isn't really about a single-payer system, but about the ACA. I just wanted to address the fact that single-payer itself is NOT some Stalinist, inefficient system.
You also didn't address why certain groups are exempt from it. It also wrecks some small companies' plans. Again, it's an immature approach. I agree reform is needed, but help those that actually need it. I don't.
I agree that no one should have been exempt from it. This kind of backroom schmoozing and deal-making from the likes of Ben Nelson (at least I think it was him, it might have been a different senator) is, in my opinion, a large part of why the Democrats got shellacked in 2010. They were handed the keys to the kingdom, and proceeded to engage in the same kind of corruption that Obama campaigned against. It's no wonder people became disillusioned with them in short order.
If it wrecked small business plans, that was probably because those plans had inadequate coverage, right?
This whole argument illustrates the problem inherent with the system. If we have an employer-based insurance healthcare model, but many employers cannot afford to provide their employees with insurance that actually covers anything, then don't you think that system might be flawed? That maybe we ought to go with a system that isn't employer-based? Particularly when employment can be terminated so easily?
And to balladofwindfishes, believe it or not, people can understand it and still disagree with it. It's hilarious that there are those that think everyone will agree if he just explains it better. lol. Obama isn't the smarted man in the room. People do understand what is going on and just don't like it
I don't mean to be rude here, but you come off as a little ignorant when you say things like "So what happens down the line, in this single payer bullshit, when we can't afford it anymore. The money has to come from somewhere." That statement reeks of right-wing AM radio talking points with no basis in fact. So if the replies you're getting seem condescending, that's probably the reason.
I agree that the ACA was, overall, bad policy. But many people seem to forget that the American healthcare system prior to the ACA was an absolute disaster for millions of Americans. We LEAD THE WORLD in medical-related bankruptcies. Wouldn't you agree that's a pretty terrible thing to be #1 in? And do I need to bring up pre-existing conditions?
It's amazing to me that in two short years, the GOP has managed to make the American people forget that 1) Our healthcare system was HORRIBLE before the ACA was passed, and 2) Deregulation of the financial industry led to millions of people losing their jobs. Now they've got people on a Repeal and Deregulate bandwagon despite in many cases lacking health coverage or being out of work because of the financial industry-induced recession. It's truly masterful on their part.
Now, one big issue with single-payer is the question of what to do with all the people working at insurance companies right now. I doubt a government system would be able to employ them all. This is of particular interest to me, because my father works for Kaiser, and he's 55 right now, so it would be harder for him to find a new job if the health insurance industry suddenly vanished. I've actually been meaning to do some research into how Canada handled this transition.
