Single payor was not ignored. It was rejected as supposedly unworkable in the U.S.

[No Elephants]

because of "pre-existing" structures.

A strong public option was promised; and I was okay with that because I believed/hoped that single payor would lead to single payor. But....

The opportunity that was thrown away that I was referring to was an overwhelmingly Democratic House and sixty in the Democratic caucus in the Senate, with a then very popular Democrat in the White House who had run on this very issue and won very handily.

Dummya got something like 50.1% of the popular vote and kept going on about mandate and capuhtull. Obama got almost 53% of the popular vote, with Democrats winning all kinds of House, Senate and gubernatorial seats all over the country. That was a mandate for bold change of all kinds, but especially with health care--and America was over 70% in favor of public option and/or single pay, too. We had all that and we pissed on it. JMO.

[AndyTiedye]

1. We Didn't Really Have 60 in the Senate

#60 would have had to be LIEberman, and there is no way he could have been induced to vote against the insurance companies that own him and his state.

The "opportunity" for single-payer never really existed.

We'll be lucky to keep Medicare, if the Supreme Court makes as broad a ruling against ACA as they have hinted.

[TheKentuckian]

2. and if they uphold the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act we'll be lucky to keep Medicare

The very structure of the scheme allows for ever more of seniors to just be folded into the private system with promised subsidies from the general fund and there are no shortage of corporatist hacks that have always seen this plan as the road to getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid.