Do you believe there are any *justified* reasons to be against single payer here

[Matty]

In other words, are any arguments raised by conservatives and centrist/moderate democrats worthy of being taken seriously?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It destroys the private insurance industry and will ultimately result in government rationing of care. Furthermore, it sends a message that Socialist policies are okay, which goes against our capitalist nature that is essential to keep intact to preserve our freedom.

[7,052,770]

Concern for the millions of people who will be put out of work if it's ever enacted is valid. That's not enough to derail it, but something should be done for them, and sadly single payer advocates always handwave them away.

[muon2]

I'm against it because universal coverage multi-payer models exist elsewhere and would be easier to implement here than single payer.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It destroys the private insurance industry and will ultimately result in government rationing of care. Furthermore, it sends a message that Socialist policies are okay, which goes against our capitalist nature that is essential to keep intact to preserve our freedom.

And goverment controlled healthcare is worse then private

[Deblano]

I'm against it because universal coverage multi-payer models exist elsewhere and would be easier to implement here than single payer.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It destroys the private insurance industry and will ultimately result in government rationing of care.

As opposed to de facto rationing of care based on price, sure.

Everything else people have said in this thread so far is a reasonable argument.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I just think that politically and economically the best path forward is to keep private insurance in tact for now while expanding Medicaid, improving subsidies, enacting tougher regulations to deal with price gouging,  and instituting a public option that forces insurance companies to compete with a cost effective option for lower income people.

These should all help lower costs in the long run and provide a smooth transition from the current highly privatized and inefficient healthcare market into a more low cost, smaller percentage of GDP type model that we see in places like Germany. This will give the healthcare market time to adapt.

[MAINEiac4434]

In a perfect world, I would love single payer. But I quite like the New Zealand model, which I think would be easier to implement here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The obvious drawbacks are that richer people get better care more quickly. I imagine, though, the prices of health insurance plans are much cheaper, considering they'd only cover operations instead of all medical care.

[Shadows]

No! About the damage to private insurance -  You don't out-sourse defense, you can't have an industry for price gouging & literally pushing people to death & bankruptcy. That is not a sane argument!

The only other option is to try Multi-payer & achieve Universal healthcare which is impossible & maybe worth trying in an ideal utopian world -

A) SC will likely strike down parts as Constitutionally illegal killing the bill,

B) It is very easy for Conservatives to play around with parts of it, which will destroy everything (& will essentially kill the momentum for Universal healthcare for many decades - With the tag line of failure for Universal healthcare),

C) It is administratively incredibly hard to implement & is a very complex system,

D) it is very hard to win public opinion & get enough Congressional votes for a detailed plan - What income level, what coverage level? How do you justify it - Imagine the Presidential debates, the Democrat will 100% lose (after failing to justify each thing) !

E) There is already Medicaid & Medicare - 50 year old programs which are successful. HR676 having almost 110 people in Congress supporting it. That is a tremendous basis to launch a Single payer campaign.

There has to be absolute ideological convergence & consensus regarding healthcare among both parties about implementing a multi-payer Universal healthcare. Obamacare was the multi-payer model for Universal healthcare & 20-30M people still couldn't get insurance & many had massive deductibles & co-payments !

If Single payer is implemented, like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, it will impossible to destroy  !

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

In a perfect world, I would love single payer. But I quite like the New Zealand model, which I think would be easier to implement here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The obvious drawbacks are that richer people get better care more quickly. I imagine, though, the prices of health insurance plans are much cheaper, considering they'd only cover operations instead of all medical care.

This actually sounds like a reasonable plan that addresses the problems in the system while keeping capitalism intact.

[Shadows]

BTW -

58-35 support a Medicare for all
44-36 support a Single Payer

An overwhelmingly section of Democrats & most independents support Single Payer/Medicare for all/Universal healthcare(covering everyone).

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Aren't single-payer and medicare-for-all basically the same thing in practice?

[Shadows]

Aren't single-payer and medicare-for-all basically the same thing in practice?

Kind of but Medicare is a good working program & people have positive thoughts so it gets a higher rating (While Single Payer is big bad socialism - Boo hoo !!!) . But in an ideal single payer, Co-payment & Deductible will be 0, but then you can have Medicare technically with 0.01$ payment, etc - Sort of expanded Medicaid in a way but payment to physicians/doctors is not as low as Medicaid, so many of the problems with Medicaid are not there !

About your NZ Model

Co-payment or full payment is needed to access a general practitioner, though subsidies are available.

All required lab tests, investigations, emergency treatments, hospitalizations, and surgeries are free.

Prenatal care, childbirth, and care for children under six are free.

If the patient is injured in an accident, care is free (and subsequent compensation is provided for).

If medications are required, covered prescriptions cost $3.00 ($2.10 US).

http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/ken-fabert/the-new-zealand-way-another-approach-to-health-care

If you are making an argument for the private insurance sector, possible no country's model other than (maybe) Switzerland will suit you - Even in insurance mandate & multi-payer systems, 75-85-90% etc of the insurance is coming through a Single Payer type within a Multi-payer (a government option).

Either government guarantees most stuff & leaves some special surgeries, drug prices etc out or it guarantees everything below a certain income (which covers 80-85% odd) & forces people above the income to get private insurance. That is kind of the 2 models available.

And in neither private insurance thrives - Let's say New Zealand & the private market (It is largely non-profit) -

A secondary market of health insurance schemes exists which fund operations and treatments for their members privately. Southern Cross Health Insurance, a non-profit-scheme, is the largest of these at about 60% of the health insurance market and covering almost a quarter of all New Zealanders in 2007, even operating its own chain of hospitals.

[publicunofficial]

It destroys the private insurance industry
it sends a message that Socialist policies are okay

Neither of these are bad things.

[Shadows]

Aetna CEO in private meeting: “Single-payer, I think we should have that debate”

“In the news media, it is reporting that the Republican health plan is paving the way to a single-payer system,” an Aetna employee asks Bertolini. “What are your thoughts on that, and how would it impact Aetna?”

Single-payer, I think we should have that debate as a nation. But let me remind everybody that Aetna was the first financial intermediary for Medicare. We cut the first check for Medicare in 1965 to Hartford Hospital for $517.57.

The government doesn’t administer anything. the first thing they’ve ever tried to administer in social programs was the ACA, and that didn’t go so well. So the industry has always been the back room for government. If the government wants to pay all the bills, and employers want to stop offering coverage, and we can be there in a public private partnership to do the work we do today with Medicare, and with Medicaid at every state level, we run the Medicaid programs for them, then let’s have that conversation.

But if we want to turn it all over to the government to run, is the government really the right place to run all this stuff? And that’s the debate that needs to be had. They could finance it, and if there is one financer, and you could call that single-payer. ...

We’re going to pay for it one way or another. What we have to do is we have to get the costs right. We have to get people healthy. It’s not about who is paying the bill. It’s about what we’re doing to get the costs down. The Democrats are now saying that with the new Republican bill, wait there is nothing in here about getting costs down. That’s the point. And so that’s the place we’re headed as a company. It’s not just about paying the bills.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15629716/aetna-ceo-bertolini-single-payer

[nicholas.slaydon]

I'm against it because universal coverage multi-payer models exist elsewhere and would be easier to implement here than single payer.

This exactly, France consistently ranks as the country with the best healthcare and they don't have single payer. As far as I know single payer countries like Canada, the UK and Taiwan tend to rank lower than universal multi payer countries like Germany, France, Andorra, Italy and San Marino on healthcare ranking lists