Public-option to Single-payer?

[Deldem]

Why would you oppose it so much? I fail to see how single-payer is bad- every advanced country in the world has it besides us, and every advanced country spends less on health care than us, with better results.

Perhaps you're concerned the poor insurance companies would have to not gouge prices as badly, since a public option/single payer would indeed affect the free market. "Oh no, the benevolent people at the insurance companies can't deny me my rights for bad reasons anymore!"

Perhaps you're afraid the government bureaucracy would mess up health care, which would be a somewhat valid concern. That is, if the private equivalent wasn't insurance companies, which, you guessed it, have horribly inefficient bureaucracies themselves. The only difference is that private industry intentionally screws the consumer- they actively seek to avoid their duty. You do not have this problem with a government run option.

But I think the reason you are so opposed is because you, quite honestly, don't care about the people who desperately need this reform in order to carry on with their lives. You really only care about one thing- your money. You don't care that this system could save lives, could lower costs, could make America a better place. You just care because you are, God forbid, being asked to help ensure that every American can have a long and healthy life. Rationally, it is worth giving up a small monetary amount for the good of the people.

So I ask you now- if not a public option or single payer, what is it we should do? How do we fix our broken system? I'm quite curious.

[Deldem]

Why would you oppose it so much? I fail to see how single-payer is bad- every advanced country in the world has it besides us, and every advanced country spends less on health care than us, with better results.

If every 'advanced' country legalised throwing children into pits of acid, would you support that too?

You missed the second part of my argument, where I pointed out it was better elsewhere as compared to America.

But I bet the thrown child would be taken care of better than they would be if that situation existed in America.

[Deldem]

Why would you oppose it so much? I fail to see how single-payer is bad- every advanced country in the world has it besides us, and every advanced country spends less on health care than us, with better results.

If every 'advanced' country legalised throwing children into pits of acid, would you support that too?

You missed the second part of my argument, where I pointed out it was better elsewhere as compared to America.

But I bet the thrown child would be taken care of better than they would be if that situation existed in America.

America also spends the most on healthcare, yet it has the lowest life expectancy out of the G8.

Wait, so you think there should be some kind of government run health care too?

Though now that I look at it, my wording was a little odd. I'm saying elsewhere, where they have single-payer or some other kind of government-run system, would be better than America, which has nothing public whatsoever. Therefore, it would be better to be hurt outside America if you want better care.

[Deldem]

Why would you oppose it so much? I fail to see how single-payer is bad- every advanced country in the world has it besides us, and every advanced country spends less on health care than us, with better results.

If every 'advanced' country legalised throwing children into pits of acid, would you support that too?

You missed the second part of my argument, where I pointed out it was better elsewhere as compared to America.

But I bet the thrown child would be taken care of better than they would be if that situation existed in America.

America also spends the most on healthcare, yet it has the lowest life expectancy out of the G8.

Wait, so you think there should be some kind of government run health care too?

Though now that I look at it, my wording was a little odd. I'm saying elsewhere, where they have single-payer or some other kind of government-run system, would be better than America, which has nothing public whatsoever. Therefore, it would be better to be hurt outside America if you want better care.

Only under the conditions I mentioned above. UHC would be a colossal black hole for government funds.

Though I disagree, I understand your point.

However, I would be willing to pay for it if it could potentially lower private insurance rates, or indeed provide excellent coverage.