Most sensible liberals I've talked to about this support a "single payer" system laid over privately-owned and competitive providers. Basically, Medicare writ large, as far as I can tell. A monolithic system, owned by the government, would be a disaster.
Most of the health care money comes out of businesses now, and flows through insurance companies to providers. A single-payer system would have to work without radically altering the flow of billions of dollars. Any tax increases, for example, would have to be on business, hopefully largely offset by savings from not having to pay for insurance themselves. Tax increases in individuals would be a major show-stopper, since businesses may not pass their savings along to employees.
I hear a lot from proponents about the lower medical spending in other countries, and higher health statistics, but nobody has ever actually itemized these, never mind setting up hard cause and effect.
As one example, does the billions in R & D from our pharmacy companies get added to our health care costs? Other nations just get to buy the drug off the shelf.
I want to see some real numbers on how this would be done. Nobody has ever delivered them.
Current Events » in reply to Universal health care
re: Universal health care
