Are Democrats more likely or less likely to support a single-payer healthcare system in the future?

[kentuck]

After this present experience with the Affordable Care Act?

Or is the idea of a single payer dead forever?

And are we stuck forever with a healthcare system that puts insurance companies at the center of it all?

Is this the best we can do?

[badtoworse]

1. Less likely in my opinion. The government has made a complete cock up of ACA

The government would need to demonstrate competence in health insurance / health care before it should be allowed to take on the additional responsibilities of single payer. So far, ACA looks like a disaster.

[Jazzgirl]

4. Medicare?

[badtoworse]

6. Solvent?

[PETRUS]

15. Costs

Medicare's overhead is dramatically lower than for-profit insurance. Are you trying to make a sideways argument for abolishing the private sector?

[alsame]

7. Gradually lower the age for

Medicare until everyone is covered. The single payer system is already functional, we just have to add more people.

And expanding the pool with younger, healthier people will improve solvency issues.

[badtoworse]

9. How would it improve solvency? Everyone is already paying the Medicare tax

What you are suggesting would likely require a substantial increase in payroll deductions. That would really piss off those younger, healthier workers.

[alsame]

10. An increase in payroll deductions for

guaranteed 100% healthcare versus monthly premiums to a for-profit insurance company?

I know which I'd prefer.

[badtoworse]

12. You said gradually lower the age.

How long before those younger, healthier people would be covered? They'll be hit with higher payrpo deductions right away.

[alsame]

13. What I'm talking about is not unlike what we have now,

seniors on Medicare, others using private insurance. And just lowering the age, allowing a buy in to Medicare. No one would pay new Medicare premiums until they were enrolled.

It's what a few Dems (Schumer, for one) were proposing during the ACA debate. I'm sure if you Google it, you'd find plenty of the details they were discussing.

You can nitpick the specifics, but the point remains that the single payer structure already exists in the US. There is no reason for the existence of a for-profit health insurance industry.

[Scuba]

2. This is why we need a progressive President and Congress instead of more corporatists.

[CK_John]

3. IMO,It will take another 5 or 6 election cycles.

[Fumesucker]

5. Yes n/t

[Yo_Mama]

8. My hunch is less likely, but I sure do hope I am wrong.

I do think people might support the end of the private health insurance having a monopoly on things, but I think the sweet cash thrown around by these companies is too much for Congress to resist.

Also, everyone should understand that the cost of private insurance is so high because it is funding part of the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, so simply rolling us all into Medicare (which would save money in some ways) implies that payments to health care providers under Medicare would have to increase.

[vinny9698]

11. Single payer will come about, just like the Canadian single player came about

One province started and the rest saw the success and money saved that other provinces followed.
I believe Vermont is headed that way, single payer. California is also leaning toward single payer.
Once states see the success, the rest will follow or at least the blue states.

[Johonny]

16. I agree

[scheming daemons]

14. if the ACA fails, no politician will propose single payer for decades

It will be politically too toxic.

We have to make this succeed.