j.r. leonard

Why though? Seems arbitrary given the number of different universal healthcare models and it’s general unpopularity outside of leftist circles Why isn’t public option with private alternatives the future of US healthcare?

Because it’s more expensive. A French system with some role for private insurance in nonessential healthcare is possible, but single payer makes healthcare cheaper for everybody by reducing administrative waste and eventually how much providers charge for their services.

Also broadly something like a public option has underrated administrative costs. A full national health insurance system doesn’t require the whole complicated regime of subsidies that both reduces uptake and costs money to administer.

Another way of saying this is: what value do private insurance companies bring to the healthcare system? What benefit do they have that justify the billions they cost the US healthcare system?

Public option if my preference for a bunch of reasons, but I’m not really talking about my preferences here I’m saying that real single-payer is an unpopular option outside of a small percent of the population. Why is that going to change in, say, the next 10 years?

Single payer is only unpopular when you put the most unpleasant aspects of it in the question. Having parents is unpopular when you say “do you want someone to tell you what you can eat and wear?” but popular when you say “do you want someone to feed and clothe you for free?”

I think polling “do you support single payer if it means abolishing private insurance” is like polling “do you support single payer if it means you can go to any doctor you want for free.” Both framings cause ppl to lean hard one way or the other.

But anyway are we debating whether M4A is the best, most cost-effective system, or whether it’s popular/politically feasible. Bc frankly the answer for the latter is “as soon as all the Dems are on board.” Anything can be made a 50-50 partisan issue in America today. ANYTHING.