France doesn't have a
full single payer system, which is what I said, and which is accurate.
Health care in France - Wikipedia
"Approximately 77% of health expenditures are covered by government funded agencies."
"85% of French people benefit from complementary private health insurance."
In other words, 23% of costs are covered by non-government payers, and the majority of French people have some level of private health insurance. The French system has much more extensive public health expenditures than the US, sure, but since the government is not the
sole source of payments (a "single payer", if you will)
it is not technically single payer.
Germany has a multi-payer system with 130 "sickness funds" as well as private insurance. Japan uses employer-based insurance for most of the population.
Privately-run funds which are so heavily-regulated that they might as well be government agencies... is still not technically single payer. And it is not what has been proposed by single payer advocates in the US, as far as I know. Many of them seem to want the satisfaction of reducing Blue Cross/Blue Shield to rubble. We could basically turn companies like BCBS and Aetna into funds like they use in France or Germany using the framework already provided by the ACA - requiring even more comprehensive coverage, lower co-pay and deductibles, instead of the current medical loss ratio requirements, the amount of profit they are allowed to make could be gradually lowered until they are forced to be non-profits. This is not what people mean when they say they want single payer, as far as I know. (Primarily because, you know... it
isn't single payer.)
Anyway, all three countries have far better healthcare systems than the US. I would take the German or Japanese system over the American system with little hesitation, and the French system is one of the best in the world (but again, technically still not single payer). Viewing it as a horrible betrayal to think that we should have some hybrid, with some public payer elements like Medicaid and some private but highly-regulated insurers, is ridiculous and ignores the significant issues that might come with selling single payer to the American people, some of which would be due to the large disruptions it would cause to the current system and/or high price tag that would come with trying to minimize those disruptions. Doctors are very well-compensated in the US compared to other countries, yet they are not unpopular for this. A single payer system would be fought by doctors and hospitals pointing out how Democrats want to cut their compensation severely. There are approaches that would not require so directly confronting the doctors' lobby.
The route I would favor as politically more feasible, for example, would involve further expanding Medicaid, lowering the eligibility age for Medicare, increasing subsidies for the ACA exchanges and offering the ability for both individuals and businesses to buy into Medicaid (it would probably be
called "Medicare", since that program is more popular, but Medicaid actually offers more comprehensive coverage and is a better basis for a public option). Most people would end up on public insurance in this scenario. But this wouldn't be "single payer", therefore it would be a betrayal, I suppose.
But anyway, if you're going to make the fucking phrase "single payer" your litmus test, you should probably know what it means and know that it is not synonymous with universal, comprehensive, affordable healthcare. You should also probably have some idea of how other systems arrived at the point they did, and consider whether pursuing an ideal outcome with a lower chance of success to be worth giving up the chance for a messier model with more parts, but with a higher chance of success.
And if you don't consider the distinction between the French system and "single payer" to be notable, then could the approach I suggested also be considered "single payer"? If so, what's the point of getting so hung up on that label?
If what you
really mean is "universal healthcare" you should just use that term. But if you used that term... you might have to acknowledge that the Democratic Party hasn't said that "universal healthcare" is "off the table". In fact, the Democratic Party platform says the universal healthcare is their goal, and that the Democratic Party believes that healthcare should be a right, not a privilege.
In fact, I'm not quite sure where the idea is that the
Party has said even "single payer" is off the table, I know Hillary Clinton dismissed the notion that it would ever happen in the US. But you know, she's not running for president again, she is not the only party leader, and that still doesn't amount to a commitment to opposing single payer.
I would also note that plans with the label "Medicare For All" have been endorsed by a large portion of the likely Democratic presidential primary contenders. Aside from Sanders, of course, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren all signed onto the Senate Medicare For All bill in 2017. The earlier House bill has over 120 cosponsors in that body. "Medicare For All" is, of course, vague and could be plausibly applied to a plan based around a public option, rather than single payer. But either way, this seems like a pretty good turn of events for team universal healthcare.
But meh, not enough to get me to try to kick out the deranged Trump GOP, right? Millions of people getting health insurance isn't that much better than millions of people losing health insurance, they're basically to the right of Nixon. That's the good faith argument, as opposed to the bad faith argument being made by me which is that single payer has a specific meaning and France's system doesn't fit that specific definition. (Never mind what I said about countries other than France, which have systems significantly less similar to single payer and still have much better systems than the US.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Oh yeah, it's erimir's award-winning sarcasm again.
|
Sorry you can't actually come up with any good arguments and must limit yourself to evidence-free bitterness
