Republican supports single payer.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

In a striking interview on MSNBC this morning, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) made, perhaps unintentionally, a strong case for a single-payer health care system.

Speaking with host David Shuster after an announcement by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a progressive who advocates single-payer, that he would vote for health care, Shadegg argued that Democrats only got Kucinich's vote by "breaking arms." He suggested Kucinich wouldn't readily vote for the bill because it rewards insurance companies.

"The reality is, this bill is going to reward for-profit insurance companies that have done a disservice," Shadegg said. "This bill is going to give them exactly what they wanted. The insurance industry, the for-profit insurance industry, wanted an individual mandate and that's what they're getting out of this bill. The for-profit insurance industry did not want a public option because they don't like competition and guess what? They're getting that."

When Shuster accused Republicans of supporting insurers, Shadegg balked.

"No we don't! You guys keep saying that, but I'm not the guy pushing the bill that says we should compel people to buy insurance from the for-profit guys. That's the Democrats," he said.

Then, after some back and forth with Shuster: "I would support single-payer."

"You would support a government-run medical system?" Shuster asked.

"Absolutely," Shadegg said. "I would support forcing American insurance companies to compete. Right now they have a monopoly."

He also said that the best way to pay for those with pre-existing conditions is to "spread their costs among the healthy, among the taxpayers."

Watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCoWilXEysc

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/republican-congressman-i-would-support-single-payer.php?ref=fpb

[Sewer]

The guy who used his seven month old granddaughter as a prop?

[Marokai Backbeat]

The guy who used his seven month old granddaughter as a prop?

Maddie says hi!

[Lief 🗽]

Cool. Maybe he can co-sponsor Alan Grayson's bill then?

What's that? You say he's a lying hypocrite? Oh.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'd rather single-payer than ObamaCare.

[Bo]

Isn't he retiring? If so, maybe he wants to mend some fences with Democrats just in case his kids ever decide to run for higher office.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He makes no sense.  If he wants competition, he'd support a public option, not necessarily a single payer system (which, depending on how it's run could eliminate private companies, but that's getting into complexities that we don't need to get into here).  And multiple companies can't have a monopoly on an industry, that's just a basic principle of economics.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He makes no sense.  If he wants competition, he'd support a public option, not necessarily a single payer system (which, depending on how it's run could eliminate private companies, but that's getting into complexities that we don't need to get into here).  And multiple companies can't have a monopoly on an industry, that's just a basic principle of economics.

They could have an oligopoly.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He makes no sense.  If he wants competition, he'd support a public option, not necessarily a single payer system (which, depending on how it's run could eliminate private companies, but that's getting into complexities that we don't need to get into here).  And multiple companies can't have a monopoly on an industry, that's just a basic principle of economics.

They could have an oligopoly.

That's the word I was looking for - I gave up after 10 minutes of not remembering it.  So yeah, an oligopoly, but that's different than a monopoly.

[nhmagic]

WTF - Shadegg has been my congressman for years and he has never said something so stupid in his life.  This really worries me and makes me glad Obama is president and not McCain - we probably would have single payer already.  Jack Kingston and Darryl Issa were up on Maher saying how they were the ones who created the public option in the first place.  Carl where are you?  This is disturbing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He's either a total RINO or a total liar. Most likely the second one.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

He makes no sense.  If he wants competition, he'd support a public option, not necessarily a single payer system (which, depending on how it's run could eliminate private companies, but that's getting into complexities that we don't need to get into here).  And multiple companies can't have a monopoly on an industry, that's just a basic principle of economics.

They are regional monopolies and that is basic economics, but I agree with the whole question of "why the  does he not support the senate bill"?

[Torie]

I'd rather single-payer than ObamaCare.

Ya, the pending bill appears the more I learn about it, to be a near total cf. If it passes, I am close to going out on a limb, and predicting it will not have a very long half life. It is a pity that the GOP was so ham handed in shredding it. They needed a pit bull there with Obama at Blair house for the dog and pony show, who was totally on top of the facts, and while Ryan did a bit of that, in general, it was a huge missed opportunity. Darn, I wish I had been there!

Having said that, Shadegg's insurance company bashing verges on demagoguery. Our problem with medical services have next to nothing to do with insurance companies overcharging or milking the system. There just is no data, profit data or otherwise, to support any of that.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He makes no sense.  If he wants competition, he'd support a public option, not necessarily a single payer system (which, depending on how it's run could eliminate private companies, but that's getting into complexities that we don't need to get into here).  And multiple companies can't have a monopoly on an industry, that's just a basic principle of economics.

They are regional monopolies and that is basic economics, but I agree with the whole question of "why the  does he not support the senate bill"?

No, because there are several companies that provide health coverage just right here in Michigan.  It's not a monopoly.

[Sam Spade]

I'd rather single-payer than ObamaCare.

Scary when I agree with Libertas.

Torie - you're right about the effects, but you must remember that this is a tax bill, not a health care bill which changes the rationale why it's being done.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'd rather single-payer than ObamaCare.

Scary when I agree with Libertas.

Torie - you're right about the effects, but you must remember that this is a tax bill, not a health care bill which changes the rationale why it's being done.

Libertas, Spade, and Mr. Moderate agree!  Time for a poll question, methinks.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The AMA has concluded that health care is a near monopoly.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The AMA has concluded that health care is a near monopoly.

Their conclusion is wrong.  A monopoly, by definition, cannot be held by multiple companies.  Just look at the Greek roots of the word.

[© tweed]

The AMA has concluded that health care is a near monopoly.

Their conclusion is wrong.  A monopoly, by definition, cannot be held by multiple companies.  Just look at the Greek roots of the word.

"this is not a nomenclature" - William Buckley --> Noam Chomsky, ~1968

[Sbane]

I'd rather single-payer than ObamaCare.

Having said that, Shadegg's insurance company bashing verges on demagoguery. Our problem with medical services have next to nothing to do with insurance companies overcharging or milking the system. There just is no data, profit data or otherwise, to support any of that.

Well it would be nice if they spent as much time pressuring hospitals and doctors to lower costs as they spend trying to deny people coverage. Moreover they have no incentive to lower costs as they have an oligopoly over the system. I think the first thing Obama should have done is got rid of antitrust protections for insurance companies.

I have this sneaking suspicion that the free market is just incapable of ensuring all Americans have medical coverage. Wouldn't you agree? And that is the problem with this sector isn't it, that everyone needs access to it? In other "normal" industries, a lot of Americans would not be able to access their services and that would be just fine. Not morally feasible in this case.

[© tweed]

Wyden-Bennett has plenty of (R) sponsors.  of course if it were ever to creep towards reality the fix would be in.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The AMA has concluded that health care is a near monopoly.

Their conclusion is wrong.  A monopoly, by definition, cannot be held by multiple companies.  Just look at the Greek roots of the word.

notice how I used the qualifier near? hence the phrase near monopoly

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The AMA has concluded that health care is a near monopoly.

Their conclusion is wrong.  A monopoly, by definition, cannot be held by multiple companies.  Just look at the Greek roots of the word.

notice how I used the qualifier near? hence the phrase near monopoly

But it's not even a near monopoly.  There are SEVERAL companies competing, and in most states, one company is nowhere near having a monopoly on the market.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The AMA has concluded that health care is a near monopoly.

Their conclusion is wrong.  A monopoly, by definition, cannot be held by multiple companies.  Just look at the Greek roots of the word.

notice how I used the qualifier near? hence the phrase near monopoly

But it's not even a near monopoly.  There are SEVERAL companies competing, and in most states, one company is nowhere near having a monopoly on the market.

Just to let you know I plan on getting a master degree in economics so I make it my business to ensure that my bias is thrown out of economic affairs. Insurance providers may not engage in near monopolistic practices on a national level, but they defiantly do on a state/local level. For example in the state of Arkansas blue cross owns 75% of the insurance industry, and this should be broken up for both legal and economic reasons. The justice department legally defines a "highly concentrated" company when they owns 42% of the market within an area. The economic reasons also justify the term near monopoly because the health care insurance industry as a whole engages in anti-completive practices, and in effect creating barriers to entry. This is especially true in states like Arkansas where a provider like blue cross owns 75% of the health care insurance industry. When a company owns 75% of an industry I think the term near monoply is warranted.

*one of the reasons as to why Insurance companies are highly concentrated in particular areas more than others is because of the whole "state line issue", but abolishing these state lines wouldn't change anything unless there is comprehensive reform, and this is  because the demand for insurance is already inelastic.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

That's fine (at least for Arkansas).  But to state that "Right now they [insurrance companies] have a monopoly" is not true on a national level, like Shadegg was talking about.