General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums81% of Democrats Support Single Payer, as well as 58% of all Americans
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/12/1469108/-81-of-Democrats-Support-Single-Payer-and-58-of-all-AmericansA reminder, given the discussion about Single Payer that Chelsea Clinton has given rise to:
When asked their opinion, nearly 6 in 10 Americans (58 percent) say they favor the idea of Medicare-for-all, including 34 percent who say they strongly favor it. This is compared to 34 percent who say they oppose it, including 25 percent who strongly oppose it. Opinions vary widely by political party identification, with 8 in 10 Democrats (81 percent) and 6 in 10 independents (60 percent) saying they favor the idea, while 63 percent of Republicans say they oppose it.
Hillary Clintons opposition to Single Payer, and it is worth Chelsea Clinton bemoaned the elimination of private insurance today, is a deeply minority position within the Democratic Party.
I have long thought Single Payer was a dividing line between third way types and liberals. The US spends an absurd amount of money on a corrupt system. Obamacare was an enormous improvement, but most in the party support the Medicare for all system that Sanders support.

NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)After all, Canadian single payer was started by a single province, Saskatchewan.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
We really don't need a test drive drive anyway. We know it works all over Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. We could pick one at random and it would be better than ours.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Don't expect it to pass, though. Colorado is a deeply libertarian state, so, while they may have legalized marijuana they also hate gun control and taxes.
Hillary painted herself into a corner being against SP and for Australian style gun confiscation. Expect Colorado to go blood red if she is the nominee.
Assuming super-delegates aren't used to steal the nomination from Bernie, his better have a strong argument to show his policies won't significantly raise the tax burden on the middle class.
pengu
(462 posts)Plenty of countries have already successfully test driven it. It needs to be implemented nationally, not on a patchwork state by state basis.
renate
(13,776 posts)The real-world evidence could not be clearer. In countries with single-payer health care, people don't postpone going to the doctor, they don't go into medical bankruptcy, families' futures aren't destroyed simply because a single cell goes rogue and turns into cancer.
I'm old enough to remember when America really was the best country in the world to live in. Now, unless you're rich, it's practically an embarrassment... not because we don't still have the potential to be awesome, but because that potential has been absolutely squandered.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)KG
(28,769 posts)the dem party is led by morally corrupt political cowards.
pengu
(462 posts)I'm not really loving that as the party motto. Time for a change.
neverforget
(9,483 posts)Homer Simpson
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Monthly.
But, you know, wars and money to the Kochs . . . blank checks, and all.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,606 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyone.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,606 posts)...still has the insurance companies in the loop with the for profit companies making a percentage and their stockholders profiting from the care of pneumonia, AIDS and suffering. Maybe my thinking is skewed but that seems wrong to me.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They basically come down to three ways:
1) The UK system - Doctors work for the government, hospitals are owned by the government, and so on. When you are accessing (most) healthcare, you're getting a government service that is billed to the government.
2) The Switzerland system - Private insurers are required to insure everyone with a reasonable policy, paid by the government if the insured can't. Doctors and hospitals are private entities. When you are accessing all healthcare, you are getting a private service that is billed to a private entity.
3) The Canada and everyone else system - Public insurance for private doctors and hospitals. When you are accessing (most) healthcare, you are getting a private service that is billed to the government.
The two " most)" above are because elective procedures (ie. plastic surgery) are usually not covered.
Medicare already fits under #3. Medicare-for-all would just expand that.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)single payer is often referred to in those terms because people know what Medicare is.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,606 posts)The UK systems features a national tax that covers needed medical treatment. If we decide that medical care is a basic right and enforce coverage for all, how is it okay to then allow uninvolved investors to profit from it?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,606 posts)They have no party preference and seek only allies from either side.
Anything a politician listens to from a group that stands to profit should be suspect.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Insurance and pharmaceutical profits are through the roof, and will continue to rise. People like me, who work for small companies, are footing the bill. then there is the fact that you have to shop for new insurance every year, shop for a new physician every year, hope your insurer includes your physician, and wade through mounds of paperwork to make sure you are getting what you were promised.
the ACA made the insurance profiteers part of the government, and no amount of "tweaking" or "expanding" it will help. It will have to be undone.
KG
(28,769 posts)'it's the best we could hope for!' -
eridani
(51,907 posts)Former President Bill Clinton said the United States could save more than $1 trillion a year by adopting any other advanced nation's healthcare system.
He also said there are important advances included in President Obama's healthcare reforms and urged that it be improved upon rather than repealed.
"Our healthcare system has gotten all out of whack," Clinton said in a speech on Tuesday at the Jefferies Global Healthcare Conference, stressing the need to bring inflation in healthcare costs back in line with economic inflation.
Clinton said Canada and the European countries that have universal health coverage for their citizens spend a smaller percentage of their gross domestic product on healthcare than the United States does.
"Germany and France, with what is considered the most effective systems in the world in terms of universal coverage and quality of treatment, they spend 10 percent. Canada spends 10.5 percent," Clinton said.
"The United States spends 17.2 percent without having universal coverage," Clinton said.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Again, I could throttle whoever spread the meme that "single payer" is the only way universal coverage can work.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--our states, with a great deal of local power. A system which does not attempt to change that has a greater chance of success. Canada got single payer for the whole country after it was implemented in just one province.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)If, CA, OR and WA has a single health care system, other regious would be falling all over themselves to copy it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I tell you what, when you actually do it, get back to us.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--to pay attention to arguments like this?