Krugman (
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/why-not-single-payer/?scp=1&sq=krugman+single-payer&st=blog):
"But there are very good political reasons for going with the Demoplan {i.e. Hillary's plan}: basically, it looks like something that could actually happen early in the next administration, while enacting a single-payer plan like the Conyers plan or the PNHP plan, excellent though those plans are, might take a very long time.
The public-private competition in the Demoplan is crucial, by the way, because it means that the Demoplan isn’t locked into the inefficiency of the private insurance system – it could evolve into single-payer over time.
Of course, the insurance industry will understand this, and fight the plan tooth and nail; the political logic of the Demoplan does not rest on the idea that AHIP will be fooled. Instead, there are two crucial advantages.
First, because most health insurance costs will continue to be paid out of premiums, the Demoplan doesn’t require a big tax increase – in fact, it can be financed simply by letting the high-end Bush tax cuts expire. I know, I know, the taxes that would support single-payer aren’t a true cost, because they would simply replace premiums and in most cases be lower than those premiums. But we’re talking about legislation, not reality.
Second, the Demoplans offer choice – so that people won’t feel that they’re being forced into a government plan. Over time, I suspect, many people will choose the government plan or plans – but they’ll have the option of staying with those wonderful people from the private insurance industry.
In an ideal world, I’d be a single-payer guy. But I see the chance of getting universal care, imperfect but fixable, just a couple of years from now. And I want to grab that chance."