Obamacare vs Single-Payer Health Care

[7,052,770]

Private single payer in which each state contracts with a high quality health insurer of its choice to cover all citizens at low premium, low cost-sharing policies that emphasize preventive services, exercise, no smoking, healthy diets, etc. The federal government would help fund, giving extra grants to poorer states. All hospitals would be mandatorily non-profit.

[7,052,770]

Neither are steps in the right direction. The U.S. government already spends one of the highest per capita figures on healthcare in the world. There is no point in going even higher. Ted Cruz's and Rand Paul's ideas are definitely steps in the right direction in fixing the monstrosity that is American healthcare, as they reduce government mandates and spending and make those using healthcare more responsible for paying for it. Isn't this obvious?

Yeah, that's just it. Single-payer would save money.

Single-payer could save money, but it would have to be run really well. It's not like it's an automatic money-saver, and I have little faith in most state governments to actually do it right.

[7,052,770]

Private single payer in which each state contracts with a high quality health insurer of its choice to cover all citizens at low premium, low cost-sharing policies that emphasize preventive services, exercise, no smoking, healthy diets, etc. The federal government would help fund, giving extra grants to poorer states. All hospitals would be mandatorily non-profit.

This is so overtly complex when you could just guarantee healthcare for everybody and you'd actually save money.

I don't trust most states in the USA to set up a system that provides adequate, sufficient, comprehensive coverage, and I doubt many of them would be competent enough to save money in the attempt.