General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: HR 676 !!! - Let's put Single Payer into the conversation: [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Vermont did not answer enough of them prior to implementing single payer, and Single Payer failed.
Continuing to avoid discussing what happened in Vermont makes it even stronger ammunition against any other public option. Simply saying "It's going to save us money in the long run" without addressing what will happen in the short run will also allow the GOP to jump in with their own scenario.
"There's no doubt changes to employment opportunities will come, though, just like they did when the steel mills closed in my area."
This particular industry isn't in just one area of the country - it is all over the country. If you think that people whose livelihood will be affected by the end of private health insurance won't fight this, unless they know exactly what will happen to them, you are naive.
Such a huge upheaval in our economy - especially one that directly affects health care - can't be done quickly.
Salaried doctors would indeed make a difference, and that can happen no matter what the payment mechanism is.
"Getting the rules right" is another phrase that sounds great but is too ambiguous to mean anything in terms of correcting the system. Sounds really easy, but if it was, it would have been done. You are proposing creating regulations to make other regulations go away, and the question is - which ones?
Healthcare spending, like legislation, looks much, much simpler than it is. Unfortunately, many people are falling into the trap of listening to slogans, and thinking that there are simple solutions.