What meantime?
We leave the ACA in place with two changes in policy:
1. Government can now negotiate cost with healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies.
2. People can choose a public option and get on Medicare.
Would we need a tax increase? Sure. Would it be big? Sure.
But, hey, right now I pay 'taxes' out the nose for shitty, rationed healthcare that has financially crippling copays. Seriously. Those 'taxes' are called premiums and go either to profits (in the case of a for-profit company providing the goods or services) or retained earnings (in the case of not-for or non-profit service providers). My HMO, for instance, is non-profit.
However, its primary 'value' that it beats all its employees over the head with is cutting costs. Why? Because they want to retain earnings so they can build more giant edifices and collect more premiums. Because they sure aren't providing us with much in the way of accessible (or affordable) healthcare.
So you know what? I'd MUCH rather be taxed more heavily, and have everyone have access to enough healthcare. The British system is pretty good. Our system is not.
And you know, I'm pretty sick of being told, "oh, well, that's pie in the sky," or "you are SUCH a unicorn," or "that's just downright impractical." The only reason for these counterarguments to doing the right and moral thing is that the big healthcare companies and big pharma companies that line our politicians' pockets with campaign contributions don't want us to have single payer. Because that, Steven, takes profit OUT of healthcare (where it belongs) and instead focuses on providing a service that is a RIGHT for all of us.
But hey, according to the US Census American Community Survey 2015 1-Year Estimates, 29,757,544 people DON'T EVEN HAVE COVERAGE. Twenty-nine million people! How is that not odious and immoral???
= new reply since forum marked as read
