The real reason we don't have and likely won't get Single Payer or Medicare for All or even....

[Bread and Circus]

Last edited Sun Jan 31, 2016, 10:07 PM - Edit history (2)

...a Public Option is because for the most part the vast, vast majority of health insurance premiums and health care costs are paid for by:

1.) Medicare
2.) Medicaid
3.) Employers

It's politically that simple.

If Americans really had to pay for their own insurance premiums we would have a single payer system or something like it.

===

On edit, I feel like people are missing the point of my post.

To clarify, I am not supporting the system as it is or supporting the rejection of moving to a single payer system (or at least a public option tacked onto the ACA).

Rather, I am trying to point out that even though a single payer system is the most efficient and humane type of health care system, people like Clinton, Pelosi, and Krugman can get away with saying stupid things because most people are "shielded" from having to pay the true cost of our health system in a way they can understand.

Again, not saying this is good or right...just pointing out reality. Just something to be aware of.

Ironically, the American system is a byproduct of unions getting health insurance premiums as a benefit back in the day. Then it kind of became the norm for America, for better or worse. But due to this feature, which basically shields many many voters from the pain of paying the true cost, it is still a politically viable tact to say "never gonna happen".

So there you go, Clinton gets to be a stinker and get away with it.

I wish we would do away with the employer mandate. Let people sweat it out for an election cycle or two, come to their senses, and then get this thing done the right way.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. People still have to pay for their own single payer. It is paid for by their taxes.

We can get there, but it won't be through revolution.

A dedicated group can move the ball by improving the existing system, one piece of legislation at a time.

[mike_c]

2. so you think that Americans can't do what most other developed nations accomplished long ago?

I think we can.

[Recursion]

4. Very few nations did single payer. In fact it's almost unheard of.

It's really just Canada, and for all practical purposes you could call UK and Austria single payer. But the vast, vast majority of industrialized countries don't do it.

[mike_c]

6. the majority provide universal public health care....

Single payer is just one model. I think it's best for the US because it might destroy for-profit health insurance, an industry that I'd like to see with a stake through it's heart. But most of Europe, the UK, many Asian countries, latin American countries, even some in Africa provide universal public health care in one form or another.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Yes! We Can't!

[Bread and Circus]

7. For the record I am a 100% Bernie supporter and a supporter of single payer as well.

I am just pointing out that the real reason why single payer isn't a reality is because most Americans already have someone else paying their health insurance premiums already.

That's just a fact of reality.

If employers didn't pay for health insurance premiums and if there wasn't a safety net for seniors and the poor, there would be massive change to the system... and would likely head to something like Single Payer, quickly. People just wouldn't put up with it.

But as it is, there's just enough "relief of pain" that bozos like Clinton and Pelosi can politically safely say "it will never happen".

I am not saying reality is good, just trying to point it out for conversation's sake.

[Luminous Animal]

12. The average worker with employer-sponsored health insurance will pay about $2,664, or nearly 24%

of the total cost of their plan next year. Five years ago, employees paid $1,835, which worked out to 22.3% of the total premium payment.

What's more, employees will pay an average of $2,487 in out-of-pocket costs, such as copayments, coinsurance and deductibles next year. That's nearly double what employees paid in 2009, when those costs amounted to $1,276.

For a total of $5151.00 per year WITH employer sponsored health insurance. And that was in 2014.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/13/pf/health-care-insurance-premium-out-of-pocket/

[Recursion]

5. Which is why O'Malley's "All Payer" plan is better

Rather than futzing around with financing, in Maryland O'Malley actually limited and even reversed the growth of hospital charges (the largest single expense in health care) in return for an operating budget grant.

It's the single best healthcare plan out there right now.

[Bread and Circus]

8. Ain't gonna disagree to an extent that "All payer" is an interesting option.

Gotta ask, does it limit drug prices too? I would hope it does.

[Ferd Berfel]

9. Employers DOn't wan to pay for it either

If given the opportunity and If they can push it off on the Gov they will

[Bread and Circus]

10. Correct. Ironically the reason we have this system is because of the unions way back when.

[sadoldgirl]

11. But, but,but...

We are not even allowed to debate a better idea.

I don't agree with this assessment. Other countries
have at least 80% or more of their people on a SP
system. We do not have that even.

Just wait for 2017, when the private insurers will
go up. I bet you that the employers will try to
shift the burden onto the employees.

[Luminous Animal]

14. They are increasingly shifting the burden by changing over to defined benefit schemes...

that is, an employee will be offered a set amount or percentage rather than the whole. Many small business owners already employed this tactic but the practice is happening more and more with large corporations.

[Avalux]

13. No We Can't! n/t