single-payer and slippery slopes
The Overton Window Moves on Healthcare
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Jim__L

    OK, so how in the world is the GOP going to be “divided” by something they are united in opposing?

    • Beauceron

      I think general incompetence makes the Republicans always seem divided, even when they agree.

    • adk

      For a governing party it’s not enough just to be opposed to something as vital to everybody as health care, especially because Obamacare “repeal and replace” was one of their biggest promises to the voters. Their failure to do that is monumental, and it did expose their divisions and inability to govern.

      As Obamacare keeps unraveling, they will be forced to do something anyway but it will be much harder and more incoherent had they united behind some reform from the get-go. And if they keep failing, a single-payer isn’t so far-fetched.

  • FriendlyGoat

    The future and the past are the same. When Democrats push something “like” single-payer, the Republicans push something “like” Obamacare—–that is, something with more free-market aspects. That’s what Obamacare is and was. We retained employer groups. We set up competition in exchanges for purchased coverage. We propped up the insurers so they would participate with less risk of losses. We made employers do groups where they can. We made customers buy the products from free-market carriers to assure that the carriers would have customers. We gave middle-class customers financial help to buy the products offered by the free market—-so customers could buy them. Then there was Medicaid for those below poverty line.
    The pesky parts were that we also defined what decent insurance must cover and blocked insurers from trying to insure “everything BUT the risk” through selective medical underwriting. Oooooh, those last parts were soooo BAD.

  • Unelected Leader

    No way. CA is super majority Dem and they didn’t even take up single payer. Even they know that a state with 12% of the total US population (and 30% of its welfare recipients!) can’t pass single payer. These Dems say they support it right now precisely because they know it cannot and will not pass. They don’t really believe it. Corrupt HC insurance companies and pharmaceuticals are their big donors.

    • Suzy Dixon

      The DNC uses and abuses their constituents worse than any other I’ve heard of. Rigging primaries. Colluding with the MSM against their own. And hc is a perfect example. Look what they’ve done. They took Romney Care and made it a national reality/nightmare. And the socialists wanting single payer were scared into submission at the prospect of losing the ACA! They actually manipulated socialists (easy to do, I know) into supporting a right wing hc plan. American “progressives” aka socialists and communists are the dumbest constituency in the country. No wonder they accomplish so little compared to their brothers in europe.

      • Paul Lies

        That was hilarious. The DNC and MSM puppets had socialists cheering for private hc when Trump failed to repeal Ocare. I lost it. I was literally keeled over watching some of the socialists outside the WH cheering for Romney Care

    • Andrew Allison

      It’s ridiculous to suggest that a State with 25% of the nation’s illegal immigrants and 30% of its welfare recipients can afford single-payer health insurance. The CA Senate was doing what it does best, namely virtue signalling.

      • LizardLizard

        From Victor Davis Hanson’s recent piece:

        http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/virtual-virtue/

        Currently, one in three of all those hospitalized in California for any cause is
        found to suffer from diabetes, a frightening statistic, at least in
        part fueled by record numbers of those vulnerable within the burgeoning
        Hispanic resident population—who, for a variety of reasons, are
        especially susceptible to the disease.

        Even more foreboding, studies suggest that nearly half of all California adults suffer
        from either diabetes or undiagnosed prediabetes, and are in dire need
        of massive education programs and health awareness concerning a largely
        preventable illness. To advocate combatting such a potentially lethal
        epidemic is to address an existential challenge to the entire state of
        40 million.

        • Andrew Allison

          Do you really think that the “progressives” ruining, er running California have a clue as to where their responsibilities lie? All that comes out of the State legislature is virtue-signalling BS. All aboard the bullet train to hell.

  • QET

    Just to keep everyone’s eyes on the prize, this from the Beeb only a few days ago: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-41113507

    This is the necessary endpoint of single-payer. At least right now, when the “corrupt HC insurance companies” behave really badly, the government can be counted on to spank them and bring them to heel at last a little. Once the government becomes the sole HC insurance company, it will reign unchecked and, notwithstanding all the paeans to “democracy” and “the people” that will be blasted through progressive megamouths, the “people” will have about as much success in causing the Big Government Health Care Inc. to behave better as we do now in causing our local registries of motor vehicles (or, if you prefer, police departments) to behave better.

    • Andrew Allison

      Repeat after me: Medicare does NOT provide health care.

      The report you cite includes: “NHS England said 95% of people seeking an appointment could get one.” How do you suppose the 27 million US residents who don’t have health insurance are doing? It’s actually worse than that because a lot of the 12 million who have ACA coverage (86% of them receiving taxpayer premium subsidies) can’t afford care due to the huge deductibles.

      • QET

        My claim is that, just as Obamacare was merely a precursor to single-payer, single-payer will be, necessarily, merely a precursor to a NHS system. Medicare can continue to exist as Medicare inside the larger HC system here but, my claim is, once all persons are covered under a Medicare-like program, the government will of necessity transition the whole system to a VA or NHS system.

        The standard for success in any government HC initiative ought to be, not whether more people “have insurance” (an easy standard to meet and one that has no necessary substance) but something more like a Pareto-optimality test, whereby at least one person is made better off without anyone being made worse off. Unfortunately, as I learned long ago directly from the mouth of a self-described progressive HC policy wonk, progressives will consider justice to have been served if all people have the same HC options and quality even if they are much worse than what most people currently have.

        • Andrew Allison

          If you take the time to actually look at the single-payer systems adopted by all the other OECD countries (the fact that the US stands alone should be food for thought, particularly given the unfavorable comparisons of outcomes from infant mortality to longevity), you will find that single-payer is clearly NOT a precursor to single-provider. All except Canada (which contracts out the provision of care to private providers) and Taiwan provide for private insurance and health care, relatively few have adopted single-provider health care. The proclivity of so-called”progressives” to try and ensure that everybody is equally miserable is well-established, but the success of so many single-payer systems demonstrates that it’s by no means preordained.

          • Boritz

            The possibilities so far for the US have been to do free market very well or do overly/highly regulated socialism poorly. The country has yet to demonstrate the potential to be successful as a highly diverse continent-wide version of Sweden.

          • Andrew Allison

            As evidenced by the cost and outcomes, the US is doing “free market” health insurance and care very poorly. The market is not, in fact free, but heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. The potential clearly exists to match the success of the myriad existing single payer systems.
            Single-payer insurance is NOT socialism: for the umpteenth time, all but two of the single-payer countries permit private insurance and care for those who want, and can afford it.

  • Angel Martin

    The Democrats are “for” single payer the same way Repubs were “against” Obamacare.

    D.C. is full of swamp creatures who are “for” and “against” any number of things – as long as there is no chance of them ever passing.

    When a politician is in favour of something that is never going to happen, or will never be repealed, they get the political benefit but don’t have to deal with the real world consequences when things actually change.

  • Doc Holiday

    Ironic, the Democrats have a plan to replace Obamacare; where’s the Republican plan, btw. Of course no surprise the Democrats have wanted healthcare-for-all (e.g. single payer) for a many decades; the Republicans counter was essentially Obamacare (aka Romneycare). When the Democrats said OK we’ll accept Romneycare if it gets us closer to healthcare-for-all and bring on-board moderate Democrats and hopefully moderate Republicans. A bi-partisan deal didn’t happen largely because Republicans were never serious about implementing a Romneycare type plan to begin with. They had little interest in reforming health care but when forced to be to look “compassionate” they would offer up a Romenycare type plan (Romneycare of course is the precursor to Obamacare and was passed by a Republican governor of a very liberal state, but, what works for a bunch of socialists in Massachusetts can’t work nation-wide… can it?). Also, Republicans didn’t want to give bi-partisan support to a Democrat “victory” even if or probably especially because the plan was initially Republican; they were in full obstruction mode. All ancient history now. But in the dark ages of Obama’s reign they promised to repeal and, sure, replace if they have to; well, now most Americans say yes you have to replace, but, with a Great, the Greatest plan where no one will be left behind and it will be cheaper. After all, Republicans must have come up with something, anything, all those years seething under Obama and that nasty woman and their death panels and everything else that they rammed down the throats of Americans. The problem is, lo and behold, the Republicans don’t have a plan, never did, their plan was… Obamacare, whoops. So, now what? The Democrats seem to be winning the long game here, Obamacare is in institution that Americans largely favor like Medicare (but only realized this under threat of going back to the good old days). Now the Democrats are pressing their advantage: you like Obamacare, how about a plan where no one is without health insurance and we can promise to make it cheaper and more sustainable unlike this rickety old Obamacare we built. To which the Democrats hope will entice a few Republicans to work with Democrats on “fixing” Obamacare or even better maybe even achieve single payer. Republicans just better hope that the one, Democrats are able to entice, doesn’t make another Great deal with Democrats and instead just quietly fix Obamacare with some concessions from Democrats and focus on vilifying single payer to avoid that scenario. So people, hold on your guns like the family jewels or else the health man will come around and take them away for being an unacceptable health risk, Watch Out!

  • Curious Mayhem

    Single-payer doesn’t divide the opposition. It creates new alliances in opposition that didn’t exist before.

    To get to single-payer health care, or “Medicare for all,” rationing would have to be imposed. A “basic Medicare” would require less rationing, but still some. The rationing starts with age-based rationing, which is what every country that has government-controlled health care does.

    A consequence is that Medicare as we currently know it would have to disappear. But the demographics dictate otherwise: voter participation rises with age and income, which means the aging Boomers will dominate the American voter base for more decades to come. If you think they’re going to tolerate dismantling Medicare as it is now and skew government-controlled and subsidized medical spending away from themselves, think again.

    I’m not in favor of government-run health care, but it’s actually too bad. The current system here, as in many other ways, is stacked against younger Americans. They sense this, but some of them are deluded enough to think that yet more government intervention will fix things. But of course, that’s what produced the crisis in the first place.

    Bankruptcy will intervene first.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.