Why Do Dems/libs Want A Single Payer Health System

Why didn't Democrats pass a single payer health system when they had the votes?

I think Walt Karas, who says he generally votes Democratic shows, the real problem quite clearly when he suggests:“It would probably require significant tax increases, some of which would fall on the middle class. Some of those who would have to pay more taxes would contribute to the production of a wave of political attack ads, which are generally very effective.”The problem here is that many Democrats, and most Republicans, actually believe this false premise.Quite the opposite premise is true. A single payer, national health insurer would deliver higher benefits, at lower cost, than any combination of 2, or more, for profit, health insurers (Check "Standard Errors: Our Failing Health Care (Finance) Systems And How To Fix Them" at Thomas Cox PhD RN. So this notion that taxpayers will be paying more, rather than less, once we eliminate our antiquated private health insurance system, is just bunk.Why? Because the core function of insurance is “risk management” and the efficiency with which risk is managed is highest when the insurer is the largest possible insurer. No matter how you split up the entire population to be insurered, between two, or more, smaller insurers, you get at best, two modestly inefficient insurers, or one very inefficient, and one extremely inefficient insurer.A single payer would save an incredible amount of money that is currently being lost due to risk management inefficiencies. In addition to that primary advantage, there are also all the savings that can be achieved by eliminating all the costs of redundant executive pools, health insurer infrastructure, underwriting and sales departments, and a tremendous amount of the money being wasted litigating benefits in hundreds of different policies and because of variances in how insurers handle claims.As long as people don’t understand how insurance really works we will have difficulty attaining the political goal of a single payer. Once everyone gets educated about the obvious advantages of a single payer, the politics will be easy despite the health insurance industry efforts to impede it. How many blacksmiths do you see today?

Why didn't Obama just try to enact a single payer healthcare system?

To a certain extent, the healthcare system reflects the culture of a country.In Britain and Scandinavia a welfare state is not questioned. Healthcare is a right and the state provides it. Not all countries view things this way, several have basic healthcare cover provided by the state along with compulsory insurance, this gives people an element of choice and an element of free market.Countries with powerful insurers adopt this, notably France, and to a lesser extent Germany.Given the US has a distrust of government and a large lobby for the insurance industry a single payer system would never take hold.Americans are used to the idea that the government shouldn't provide any benefit to them. There is also natural American optimism that bad things don't happen.Politically the US has lived with an absurdly expensive system for 40 years. Some people just don't like any change.Finally the US has a media that is largely privately funded and allowed to print lies, seeing as insurers pay for adverts and the government doesn't, it makes market sense for absurdly biased ramping up of fears to continue.

What are the pros and cons of a single payer system vs. universal healthcare?

Good question.First, let's define the terms.Single Payer System:  A government organization writes the check for every covered medical service.  Examples:  Canada's system, Medicare in the US if you are 65 or over.Universal Health Care:  This is a more general term.  A single payer system is considered universal health care.  A popular alternative is Compulsory Insurance, the requirement that everyone carry health insurance, which is often combined with assistance for poorer citizens.  An example of Compulsory Insurance is the US Affordable Care Act or "Obamacare".So right away we have the problem that we are comparing one thing that is a sub-category of the other thing.  This is like trying to compare colors to blue.  Therefore, let's rephrase the question to compare Single Payer System with Compulsory Insurance.Single Payer System is more efficient, has greater power  negotiating payments, will be accepted by more health care providers (than private insurance), and is much, much simpler to implement.  Compulsory Insurance allows greater flexibility in plan options (subject to legislation, of course), encourages competition, and retains jobs in the insurance industry.A Single Payer System wins easily.  Unfortunately, in the USA, lobbyists from the insurance industry (who tend to fund Democrats/Liberals) and Conservatives opposed to Government expansion made the Single Payer System a non-option.My personal stance is that a minimal Single Payer System is the best solution.  Have it cover emergency services, primary care physician visits, and referred specialists.  Then allow individuals to purchase gap coverage from private insurers to cover additional services and drug benefits.

With over 80% of Democrats screaming for Single Payer, why is the Party leadership ignoring them?

I question the premise. I don't see 80% of Democrats "screaming” for anything other than Russia and impeachment.I do not support single payer in this country and I am a Democrat. I have worked in single payer healthcare in America and it is terrible and an embarrassment to the American Heroes it serves. We call it the VA. Or VHA to be precise. The Veterans Health Administration is vital to the training of doctors in this country but it is so overrun with bureaucratic nonsense that it is an unmitigated disaster.In my University Hospital I take care of many veterans who served our country and I ask them why do they pay for secondary health insurance when they could go to the VA? And they ALL say, “that death trap? Oh god no!”If the VA is any indication of what single payer will turn into, then count me out.There are several western democracies that have fantastic universal healthcare systems that are much better than ours and are not single payer. Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and Belgium are the ones that come to mind. They have these things called risk compensation pools that prevent this death spiral that comes from healthy people not buying insurance. And it still allows people to have some control of their healthcare.I would not want to wait 8 months for an elective surgery that is important for my quality of life. I am willing to pay for it and I do with my insanely expensive health insurance (due to the fact that the ACA penalties are too low and are not enforced).If:There was a public option, meaning people could buy Medicare if they wantedThe no insurance penalty was $10,000 (about 1/3 of the cost of my premium plan) instead of $700.Then we would truly have universal affordable high quality healthcare in the US. Most of these Bronze plans that don't cover anything and have $5000 deductibles would disappear because the government implements Medicare for less than the cost of the subsidies and premiums for those plans.

If Democrats want universal healthcare, why don't they implement it at the state level?

Why don't more liberal states try universal healthcare?As others mentioned, money is a major stumbling block but not the only issue.Equally important is the likelihood of bureaucratization,inefficient delivery,higher costs,poor patient service, anda lack of innovationthat the Veterans Administration continues to experience without direct competition.This same problem exists now for other countries with single payer systems creating waiting lists for certain procedures.Employers pay for half of healthcare benefits and this creates competition within the healthcare market.SOURCE: How Does ObamaCare Work?Although, Medicare is not the largest provider it often sets the incentitives to drive down costs and improve healthcare quality. Its standards often become the de facto standards for private insurers.Several benefits of Medicare as part of a multiple payer and provider includepenalties to hospitals whose patients develop a staph infections at a higher rate than the average.bonuses for hospitals and other health providers for improving Internet access to their own medical records and communications with the staffencouraging innovations and determing whether medical procedures are past experimental stage ready for implementation as a standard of care (private insurers often resists new procedures)10 FAQs about the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) | Center for MediCARE & MediCAID (CMS)Payment Adjustment Information | (CMS)Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Program | Electronic Health Records (EHR) and coordinated careVA HOSPITALS Demonstrate the Worse of Single Payer and (stand alone) Single Healthcare Provider SystemsThe best VA hospitals seem to do better by co-locating and partnering with University Medical Schools and non-profit hospitals.The Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on VA-Medical School Affiliations - U.S. .https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&....Academic affiliations a source of strength for VAEnd_of_Year_Hospital_Star_Rating.aspRatings, Care Outcomes, Performance Datahttps://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/... | 32 VA hospitals named Top Performer by Accreditation, Health Care, Certification

Would Democrats support single-payer medical care with the condition it would not cover abortions, gender-reassignment, or other controversial social policy? (Private charities could still provide.)

I’m a traditional conservative Republican (“I didn’t leave my party, my party left me.”).My greatest political wish is that more political questions would be asked like this and more often. We have completely and utterly lost the art of compromise in the United States. Every policy and position is now extreme and getting more extreme and entrenched. The goal of both parties is now to frustrate and stymie until their own party is in full and total control so that they can pass something without compromise.A lawyer friend of mine says, “Compromise is when neither party is happy, but they are both willing to live with the outcome.”I see an approach like this question as having the potential for compromise. Personally, I could be convinced to support single payer if it meant removing government funding of abortion (which currently happens.) With this, I’m not even saying to ban abortion, as much as I would want to. Like the question says, private entities such as Planned Parenthood could still collect donations and subsidize abortions. However, I think we can all agree, left or right, that prenatal, natal, and newborn care is a good thing.Instead of eating the whole elephant in one bite, what could we actually compromise on if we actually tried to compromise instead of digging in?