National health is a sticky wicket, yes. So, for instance, data show that the very same youth shouting for single payer would only be willing to pay a limited amount of taxes for it, and not enough to get it under way. That last phrase is crucial. California and Vermont passed single payer, but the initial start-up costs made it impossible.
Without a national health system, we cannot create an economy of scale.
Sure. Hence my comment regarding the price tag of these bells and whistles. We can get to some sort of universal care in the US, but it’s likely to look more like Switzerland’s mixed/local model, or Singapore’s extended HSA model, than it will look like the England’s NHS.
The politics of the masses are not very policy-oriented, from what I have seen. It’s all about feelings.
Agreed. And feelings are a horrible guide for policy. The perfect becomes the enemy of the practical.
One does not have market based medicine anywhere else in the world for the same reason as we don’t have market-based infrastructure, police, fire and military.
Hmmmm. I don’t agree. Most nations in Europe are on a dual payer model, where the insurer still sits between the patient and the provider. The idea in these systems, with which I agree, is that market forces are still the only known way to hold down costs. The government saying “this is all I’m going to pay” just doesn’t work; either it leads to a Medicare-phenomenon, where the provider is forced to raises prices to the private insurers to cover their losses from the government patients, or it leads to cost overruns and tax increases. Health care costs are always top of mind in single payer nations; if the government refuses to pay companies as THEIR costs increase, then you stifle medical innovation.
Medical care is unique from the other things you list in that it is far more subject to pricing swings in components which are *not* fixed or labor. That has to be taken into consideration when designing a system. The easiest way for a system to become unpopular is if a successful life-prolonging treatment exists, but the government refuses to pay for it.
I’ll have to look into that 1998 thing. I am more of the persuasion that this is the beginning of the Twentieth Century all over again. From the Civil War to the 20s, Republicans and free-market, free-trade capitalism was ascendant. In the 30s, center-left market controls (Democratic policies) became ascendant along with right, left and center populist radicalism. That political oscillation is turning back again.
Well, a nascent libertarian movement looks a lot like a nascent conservative movement. We both may be right.