OK, now that I've done the analytical thing ...

I listed some arguments against a single-payer form of universal health coverage. Now let let's get a bit more pointed.

For the life of me I can't understand the disconnect when my liberal/progressive friends support single-payer without so much as a discussion, describe it as Medicare for everyone and then turn around and aggressively attack Republicans and a handful of Democrats for the Medicare pharmaceutical benefit.

With a single-payer plan, this is going to be their full time occupation, because it's all going to be controlled in Washington.

Don't these folks understand that Bill Frist and Tom Delay and their successors will control all of our health care? Are they out of their minds?

That's at the policy level. Operationally, when I have a problem I'm going to call one of thousands of Federal employees or contractors and they are going to have no flexibility and I'm going to have no option.

I just don't get it.

Comments

[Neil]

Couldn't US single-payer be a state-based model, like Canada? There really isn't a federal healthcare system here at all (except First Nations and military). I'm not for or against, I'm curious. This way Washington has little influence, save for the occasional budget squabble.