Why isn't single payer offered up as a deficit reduction plan?

[dkf]

HCR obviously didn't do much for our long term situation or we wouldn't be so fixated on the need for austerity.

We need real solutions from Democrats and Obama needs to come to his senses on this. It's the one homerun policy we can do to make a big difference in our fiscal situation and it makes sense.

[drm604]

1. Because the insurance companies don't want it.

That, unfortunately, is the answer.

[jtown1123]

2. Jan Schakowsky has it in her plan! Too bad noone listens to plans that don't give bjs to the rich

[surrealAmerican]

24. She was only there to be the token liberal...

... so we could think the commission was really bipartisan. They never had any intention of actually considering anything she would propose.

[MikeFoxtroters]

3. How will it reduce the deficit?

I guess I'm not understanding how single payer will reduce the deficit? Wouldn't putting that much additional financial burden on the government increase the deficit unless it is coupled with a significant tax increase?

[xchrom]

4. It was reported and schakowsky just repeated it - that it would save

10 billion a year.

[MikeFoxtroters]

6. How?

Is there a link to info on how that was determined?

[jtown1123]

11. CBO says Public Option will save $68 billion by 2020

See this: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/cbo_public_option_could_save_6.html

[MikeFoxtroters]

15. That's a public opiton

not single payer though.

[BzaDem]

12. It would reduced healthcare costs significantly, which are basically our entire deficit problem. n/t

[xchrom]

14. It was OMB or CBO -- it's their numbers.

That's been out there for a while.

[RC]

5. The tax increase would be less than the health insurance premiums we pay now.

You would not be paying health insurance premiums under Single Payer.
More money in your pocket. Helps the economy.

[MikeFoxtroters]

8. I know

but in order to pay for the single payer system the government would need to dramatically increase tax revenue. Would that leave more money in pockets?

[yodermon]

19. "tax increase would be less than the health insurance premiums"

That by itself is the very definition of "more money in pockets".

[Safetykitten]

7. Well for one thing it would be the only thing true that would "help small business".

It would in one swoop solve probably the biggest problem for businesses. No more healthcare tied to a job. People could hire without first doing the excrutiating math of the healthcare equation.

You just hire someone. No more army of HR people to just take care of benefits.

Jobs would explode.

[dkf]

13. It takes the insurance profit out of the medical system.

And single payer would have more pricing power, especially for drugs.

Those are the things I can think of immediately but the tell tale detail is that Republicans never attack single payer as costing more. They say it will take decisions out of your hands. That tells me even their studies show single payer reduces costs.

[Festivito]

23. It reduces the deficit by being a cheaper way to deliver health care.

We pay $7200 per capita per year in the US for health care.

That figure around the world runs $3000 in countries giving everything to everybody health-care-wise. Under $3000 in UK, $3500 in Canada.

Look at that in full amounts: 300-million Americans: We're paying 2.4 trillion dollars per year, where single payer would cost under one trillion dollars per year, 0.9 trillion dollars.

The 1.5 trillion dollar difference? That is the health care denial system. Armies of people in hospitals fighting for insurance dollars, AND, armies of insurance people fighting hospitals from overcharging which the hospitals have to do in order to pay for the people without insurance they must treat.

So, the insurance people have moved the fight to the insured. Get sick? Not covered. Yell? Okay, covered. But, your employer learns that you are expensive to keep around. Employer gets tired of that cost, finally lets you go. You get another job. Same thing. Finally, you've been fired for cause from three jobs and can't get another one.

THEN, YOU ARE ON MEDICARE. This is where all the sick end up. The insurer writes himself a bonus check. The taxpayer loses a worker and gains a drain.

If we had single payer, those persons will still be contributing to taxes, not draining tax money. Deficit reduction.

[OHdem10]

9. Because the Elites(The Ruling Class) are working their pwer to

avoid having any program which may require their taxes
in support.

The same reason, people are trying to cut Social Security
Medicare , Medicaid. How many times a day do you hear
especially Republicans and some Conservadems proclaim
--We can no longer afford these programs. They know and
have known our economy is under drastic change. The
Masses are never going to be earning the good salaries
of the past. The Elites realize, the Middle Class and
poor will have less money to contribute. These leaves
them to have to contribute more. Unlike the Greatest
Generation who were willing to work for the common good
and built a strong middle class in this country (1945
to late 70s), the present Generation (Boomers) are more
self-centered and drank the Kool-Aid of Individualism.
Each man for himself. When we Liberals permitted the
Conservatives to almost kill Liberalism, we were complicit
in killing the common good.

We still do not have the fire in the belly necessary
to push back.

How many times have I read the comment from Liberals
on this site.

We have to take what we can get. This makes my skin
craw. Some Democracy. We will accept whatever the
Conservatives grudgingly hand us.


corrected apelling

[elleng]

10. No way that just-adopted HCR positive effects can be reflected yet.

and the same would be true if single-payer had been adopted. In fact, I suspect that the up-front costs of setting it up and implementing would be an immediate downer, deficit-wise.

[NorthCarolina]

16. Because it is a Social program that benefits primarily the poor/middle class. eom

[laughingliberal]

17. Why? How's anybody supposed to get obscenely wealthy with a plan like that?

Obviously, the point of HCR was to keep a steady stream of profits for the hospital, insurance, and drug industries.

[Davis_X_Machina]

18. Republicans don't care about the deficit.

They only talk about the deficit.

In any event, even taking them at their word, deficit reduction isn't as important to them as preventing the creation of a new social provision that people might come to expect, and credit the Democrats with.

So long as a third of the Democratic caucus in the Senate is essentially made up of moderate Republicans, and a quarter of the Democratic caucus in the House, ditto, it doesn't matter whether Obama 'comes to his senses' on this.

[Fearless]

20. Because it takes money out of the pockets of the rich.

Just like why RAISING taxes on the rich hasn't come up, forget letting tax CUTS expire. That's why Social Security has a bullseye on it. That's why the Wall St. bailout happened but Unemployment Insurance can't be passed.

[Deep13]

21. Because "deficit reduction" is code for "screw the working classes."

This whole thing is an effort to make the rich richer and to shift all of society's burdens onto the working, previously working and shrinking middle classes. Single payer would undo some of that.

[Coyote_Bandit]

22. For the same reason that

loss of manufacturing capability isn't considered a national security issue. We're stupid.

Meaningful healthcare reform was my line in the sand. It didn't happen - and the President of hope and change failed to mount much of an effort to make it happen. He was far more interested in political posturing and bipartisanship than in fighting for and actually delivering real positive meaningful change to folks like me. If his name ever again appears on my ballot the one thing I will be certain of is that he isn't much concerned about my most basic need - the need for physical survival. Given that, I'm not sure I care what happens to his career.

I'm beginning to understand apathetic Amerikkkans.