What's more important? A public option OR single-payer at the state level? [View All]

[pilsner]

Single-payer, Medicare for all started in the province of Manitoba and swept across Canada because it became clear that it's a superior system.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich has an amendment in a house bill that would allow states to enact single-payer at the state level. By law, states can not currently do so.

The public option wouldn't have near the cost savings of single-payer.

My city alone, Columbus Ohio, pays over $100 million dollars a year for health insurance premiums for city workers and their dependents.

Just imagine what a windfall it would be for school districts and state and local government to cut their health insurance costs for public employees by 40 to 50%!!! And, the worker's comp system could be practically eliminated saving businesses billion$.

IMO, President Obama ought to be having Democratic mayors and governors pounding podiums across the country demanding single-payer, Medicare for all in the name of fiscal responsibility for taxpayers.

I think our best hope is that Rep. Kucinich's amendment survives and makes it out of the final bill that goes to the president's desk.