A good synopsis of universal HC options

[mcar]

http://theweek.com/articles/709581/liberals-story-straight-single-payer

Consider what has been going on in California. A bill to establish a single-payer plan in the state passed the state Senate there, but it was recently pulled in the Assembly by Speaker Anthony Rendon. Democrats have a super-majority in the legislature, so why didn't they go ahead? As Rendon argued, the bill would have created massive budget problems given other California laws; for instance, the state is required to spend 40 percent of its budget on education, so it would have had to come up with hundreds of billions of new dollars even beyond what it would spend on health care. It also would have required waivers from the Trump administration to divert money currently being spent by federal programs like Medicaid, waivers which of course would not have been forthcoming (David Dayen explains all the convoluted problems the bill would have created)...

The truth is that establishing single payer in a single state is a nearly impossible challenge when the country as a whole continues to exist within our largely private system. It's why Vermont tried to do it and then abandoned the effort, why Colorado voters rejected it at the polls last year, and why it isn't going to work in California. Nevertheless, more and more in the future, single payer is going to be treated as a litmus test by which "true" progressives can be distinguished from establishment sellouts...

I suspect that many people don't actually mean single payer when they say "single payer." Liberals like myself have long lamented the fact that alone among the world's advanced industrialized democracies, the United States doesn't have a system that provides universal health coverage. We look around with jealousy at other systems that manage to cover everyone and produce health results that are equal to or better than what we get, all at dramatically lower cost. But those systems vary widely in design, and none of them are truly single payer...

If we're going to remake the American health-care system — and we should — we're going to have to decide which of those models would work the best for us. But they're not "single payer."

[Wounded Bear]

1. And a useful looking link buried in the text...

http://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/

Appears to be a comparison of various national plans.

[mcar]

2. Good info

Thanks.

[Hoyt]

3. Good article, especially if one accepts California ain't gonna enact "single payer" any time soon.

I think most people who say "single payer" will accept a system that covers everyone at a reasonable -- at least palatable -- cost. "Universal Healthcare" seems a better name for it.

[Adrahil]

4. Concur.

I want everyone covered. I would prefer a French or Canadian-like hybrid system, but I am less particular about the details. But everyone covered.

[mcar]

5. I agree

Single payer is a misnomer. Universal healthcare is the more appropriate descriptor.

[Amishman]

6. We need to fix the inefficiencies in our healthcare system to lower the bill first

Finding alternative ways to pay the inflated healthcare bills in this country is just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need reform to cut runaway administrative costs and pharmaceuticals before we can figure out a more fair way to pay for it.