We won't have single-payer til 2024

[bananas]

How do I know this? Because back in 1994, it became obvious that it would take another generation before it could happen.

[Joe the Liberal]

1. I'll be surprised if we ever get single-payer with the way things are going.....

It would take some kind of ULTRA majority with real dems to get it passed in today's political climate.

[harun]

13. Only a revolution will get single payer. Our gov't gets more corporate owned every

day. Things are not going to get better in the future.

[readmoreoften]

2. And then only if the political conditions change. It's not the "mentality" of a generation

or the will of voters. It's the insurance industry. Sure it has a minority of Fox News teabaggers duped; but they're just a cover. The reality is the majority wants real reform. But the only way to get real reform is to take real political action--beyond voting. Most other nations earned their "progress" through mass strikes and uprisings. That's just the cold, hard truth. If we want change, we'll likely have to engage in similar tactics. And we're not politically organized for such events. It might take until 2024--hopefully not that long, but better late than never.

[Sherman A1]

3. That Soon?

I doubt it.

[KakistocracyHater]

4. there's a way around this time-bump, we can speed it up, by indirectly

going after the Insurance Corps. Sharp business lawyers could help, if there are any here? Almost like what Tony Blair did with 'his' money but the reverse....make a business 'strength' into its' undoing.

[pokercat999]

9. Sharp swords might be more effective.........nt

[bluestateguy]

5. I would consider that an accomplishment

nt

[Goldstein1984]

6. They don't fear us. We need to change that.

We'll get the health care we deserve when our elected officials fear us more than they fear the insurance industry.

We'll get financial reform when they fear us more than they fear Wall Street.

Our children will no longer be sent to war when our elected officials fear us more than they fear the oil companies.

[pokercat999]

10. Don't talk common sense, it's not allowed on DU......nt

[SoCalDem]

7. I'm guessing 2034..because the tail end of the boomers will be 70-ish

by then.. only the hardy ones will still be living.. Probably most of the others will be gone by then. The next 8-10 years will be very hard on them..and for a lot of us, hanging on until age 65 will be a Herculean struggle, and many will not make it.

We are the first real "test case" for all the ills that the modern chemical industry has brought us, and our exposure to these compounds started while we were adolescents, so the toll for the exposure is really hitting about now..

OUR children/grandchildren have spent an entire lifetime being exposed, so who knows how affected they will be?

The ultimate irony, is that immigrants from 3rd world countries will be the majority here by then, since they tend to have larger families, so the tenor of congress may be very different by then:).

[regnaD kciN]

8. I don't think we'll have single-payer...

...unless we have a complete economic and societal meltdown. I mean, one that makes the Great Depression of the 1930s look like a mild recession.

The reason? Going to single-payer would essentially put current health insurance companies out of business. (I know, it's said that they could survive as providers of optional insurance for "deluxe" coverage, but that would be survival as much smaller companies than they are now.) And medical insurance, as an industry, is simply too big, in terms of GNP and employment, for that to happen. It would be like the government taking over the telecommunications industry, forcing all the phone, cellular, and cable companies out of business while doing so. In and of itself, such a step might cause another major recession/depression.

So I see the only way we could get to single-payer is if everything fell apart in this country to the point where UnitedHealth, Aetna, and the others were collapsing under their own weight, leaving the field empty and allowing the government to come in and build a new system from scratch. I would caution, though, that, even if that happened, you'd wind up paying more in taxes to make up for the lack of insurance premiums. How much? I have no idea, but I've read in a reliable source that the U.K.'s National Health costs approximately three thousand pounds per year for every taxpayer. (I don't know if, for families, that would be an additional 3,000 GBP for each child, or just for the parents. And, of course, that tax burden would be spread out progressively -- plus the British, like most in Europe, are more accepting of a higher tax bite in exchange for greater government services than we are here in the good ol' individualistic U.S. of A.)

But keep in mind that, even without single-payer, it is possible to design a good, reasonably-priced health care system. For example, the country where I used to live, Switzerland, has an individual-mandate plan without a public option...but they require that private insurers provide a basic health plan on a non-profit basis, and strictly regulate the rates private insurers can charge. Even if the Senate bill here were to become the law, such a system could be created relatively easily down the road -- since the bill still contains an OPM-run non-profit system (in which, it is expected, no companies will participate now that there's no public option trigger attached to it), before 2013, it could be possible to "solve" such non-participation by passing a law requiring all companies selling insurance on the exchange to also submit a plan to the OPM system on a non-profit basis.

[eridani]

12. In HR 676, the individual mandate is $125

There is a payroll tax of 8% on business, much less than businesses now providing health care spend. The key to universal care through private insurance is that the government DICTATES what the basic comprehensive coverage will be and what it will cost. In the Netherlands, they pay 100 euros/month/adult, with NO copays, NO deductibles, and NO age rating.

[TorchTheWitch]

11. not with 2 corporatist parties we won't

Until there is a party that ACTUALLY represents the working masses we won't get shit for anything.

[harun]

14. Agree, we could have 100% Dem's in there and I have no doubt in my mind

that we would not get Single Payer. They are a corporate party just as the pukes are and the corporations need people to be their slaves. One of the first fundamentals of health reform Obama talked about was keeping our Employer based coverage system. Who do you think wants this? The constituents? Bull effing sh*t! It is a fundamental priority of the corporations not the people. This is one of the most powerful tools corporations have today in keeping the talent they want.

[Unvanguard]

15. In all probability we will never have single-payer.

There's no inevitable progression here. "Everybody else" has universal health care, but not necessarily single-payer.

There are ways to make this bill better without bringing in single-payer. A robust public option would be one. More government provision of health care services--public hospitals, for instance--might be another, but it would probably go over very poorly with the public and isn't too likely either.

[KG]

16. eventually health insurance will get so expensive and out of control single-payer will become

a populist pitchforks and torches to big for pols to ignore. not sure what the tipping point will be.

till then, the average idiot american will believe getting priced gouged and denied care is actually a good thing.

[raccoon]

17. You may be right. I worked in a hospital in the early 1970's and saw the need for it then.

Here it is 30 something years later....

[KakistocracyHater]

18. what if UK health or Canada buys a U.S. health insurance corps?

that may be one way.

[mddem9850]

19. sadly, you're probably right.