When and why did "single payer" become the sine qua non of progressive health care reform support?

[Recursion]

As we digest Vermont's decision to back off from single payer, I'm left with that question. Why did the American left decide that single payer, which is one of many models for universal health access (and not even the most popular), was the one and only way forward and that failing to achieve it was some sort of sell-out?

Canada does single payer by province. I think three German states do single payer. Norway does it through four regional co-ops. Every other system I know is either a hybrid public-private payer system, or a nationalized health system like the UK (or India, for that matter, though India has a much bigger private market and the national system is basically just for the very poor).

Who decided that the particular model of single payer was what we needed to hitch our wagon to?

[Kennah]

1. Y'all chill. I got this shit.

Joint session of Congress, and a dartboard with a map of the world with the OECD nations as the targets. 3 darts per Senator or Representative, each hit on an OECD nation is a vote for that nation's healthcare system. If there's a majority, that nation's healthcare system goes into the bill.

If there's no majority, I'm open to suggestions. Does the plurality win, or do we have sudden death between the top two vote getters?

If the House and Senate bills don't match, then this thing goes to Conference.

We get some form of universal healthcare, and the political theater will be spectacular!

[Recursion]

2. I dig it. Count me in (nt)

[Cleita]

3. Physicians for a National Health Plan, a group of Harvard Medical Center doctors

decided. Twenty plus years ago they reviewed every health system in the world and came to the conclusion single payer was the most efficient and cost effective way to deliver quality health care to everyone who needed it. It actually leaves the practice of health care in the private sector. All the government does is collect the money and pay the health care providers. It doesn't even have to be government, but an agency with the power and means to act as a bookkeeper. It's really very middle of the road in concept. In order for it to work though, insurance companies and other middle men can't be part of it. That's why it gets such bad press and is constantly attacked.

www.pnhp.org is the website

[Recursion]

5. So why don't more countries use it? (nt)

[Cleita]

7. I dunno. Stupidity.

Canada uses it and our Medicare system is single payer partially and capitalistic partially cuz u have to buy Medigap insurance. Billionaires can't make money on Wall Street silly when there is no profit to be made on sick people. That's probably why and every time u vote for a Republican or a DINO u make sure Medicare will never be for everyone.

[Downwinder]

10. As I remember Dr. Margaret Flowers was not allowed at the table.

[Cleita]

11. I think she was also arrested for insisting on sitting at the table.

Those doctors, not just her, were treated very shabbily and the fact is that their advocacy for single payer was really non-partisan. It wasn't about liberal or conservative, but what the best system was.

[Downwinder]

13. The decision was made before they got there and they were excluded.

Correction: I should say we (citizens) were excluded.

[Dont call me Shirley]

4. Um, Medicare started it.

[bananas]

6. It's not just "the left" - there's been a ton of analysis for decades

From a 1992 article in Mother Jones:

This year, prodded by senior and religious groups, organized labor, and health professionals, more than twenty states have considered legislation modeled on Canada's "single payer" system.

<snip>

In a 1981 pastoral letter, the U.S. Catholic Bishops deemed access to medical care a fundamental human right ...

<snip>

And if I recall, Nixon proposed a single-payer system when he was president a decade earlier.

Here's the link in google's cache for anyone who wants to read the rest of that article:
https://books.google.com/books?id=O-cDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT31&lpg=PT31&dq=neighbor+to+neighbor+single+payer&source=bl&ots=o8N-HfOQ71&sig=itSfF3Yg5klI8J011hPOYYwEDYg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xJ-TVJKvHYSpogTLyoCoCw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=neighbor%20to%20neighbor%20single%20payer&f=false

Not sure if this image of that page will paste properly:

[Ron Green]

8. Single payer is not sufficient, but it's necessary.

Some other elements are a patient-centered medical home delivery model, payments based on outcomes, a commitment to healthier communities, subsidies for primary care education, and an honest national conversation about death.

But single-payer is an essential part of it.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Because we already have it for those 65+

And it's the only health insurance in the US that doesn't suck horrifically, except for socialzed medicine through the VA and similar.

We could do other stuff, but it hasn't been demonstrated to not suck horrifically in the US.

[eridani]

12. Because the provinces in Canada are a lot like states here.

A loosely federalized system would work better than a national system like in Britain. There are no developed countries where private insurance actually controls health care. For instance in France, 30% of expenses are paid through private insurance, but the system is nationwide and controlled by the government as to what is covered and how much it costs. The private insurers exist to take care of the 30% co-pays. Wherever there are multiple payers, the government dictates minimum benefits and costs.

Also, single payer systems usually guarantee a uniform basic national system, and people are allowed to get extra bells and whistles through private insurance if they so desire.