Skip to main content

View Diary: When Can We Expect Health Care Reform (Whoever Wins)? (369 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What evidence would that be, exactly? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pat K California, Rolfyboy6

    Show me the evidence. I believe you are assuming the evidence is overwhelming, without actually having the facts to prove that point. I have, in another comment here, given polling data that suggests single-payer is much closer than you believe. So I am calling your evidence out. Let's see it.

    If you don't have it or can't produce it, would you be willing to reconsider your assumptions?

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:28:41 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  We are projecting human affairs into the future (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      As such, there will never be "proof" of what will happen, so when I say "overwhelming evidence" it has to be a matter of judgment. DemfromCT just went through a number of really important points that have a strong cumulative impact, and I won't repeat them. Here are some other factors that are salient:

      1. The United States almost never nationalizes industries. The only recent example I can think of is airport screeners, and that's because after 9/11 Republicans decided that this was a matter of national defense. Also, it's a tiny industry. Health insurance is not national defense, and it isn't tiny.
      1. Insurers will fight far, far harder if it is a matter of their survivial, vs. merely a matter of increased regulation. You will have to overcome stronger lobbying and (more important) advertising aimed at public opinion. They would use every means available to throw into doubt the cost of the single payer proposal, the ability of Americans to trust a new govt-run institution not to be wasteful or have bad service (like the DMV), etc.
      1. Increased revenues from UHC will partly compensate for increased regulation and lower margins, decreasing resistance even more for this alternative to single payer in comparison.
      1. Hospitals are paid at a higher rate by private insurance than by Medicare (and far more than by Medicaid). Not only do private insurers pay better, but if they leave and there is only one payer, that payer will have enormous leverage over providers and they do not want this. If you can find a single head of a hospital system who is calling for single-payer, let me know.
      1. The Clintons' first attempt at UHC failed for several reasons, but one of them was that people saw it as taking away something familiar and replacing it with something untested. Single payer would do that; UHC would not necessarily do so (The Clinton and Edwards plans would not).
      1. The facts in favor of single payer are not what you think they are. It is NOT massively less costly than multi-payer, nor does tend to provide higher quality, and so there is no pressing need to go with the more radical option. Here are the statistics. Given that fact, inertia, familiarity and industry resistance to change will all strongly favor less radical reforms.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site