What committee is proposing a single payer?
XT, my point is that of the dozens of countries that have implemented a universal health care system, none of them seem to regret it. At least not to the point of prefering a private health care system. These countries all have different systems so it would appear, based on decades of real world evidence, that universal health care generally works.
I see no reason to assume that the United States will be an exception to this. If universal health care works in countries as diverse as Canada, Taiwan, Denmark, and India, I’m going to assume it will work here. It won’t be perfect, because nothing is prefect. But all the evidence is that it will work better than private health care. Which is the reason that no other country is looking to model their health care on our system.
So I see the Republicans painting themselves into a corner. They are very adamantly opposing universal health care as a party platform. Which means that if it is enacted over their opposition and it works, they will very clearly have been wrong on a major issue and the Democrats will have been right. That will hurt the party.
Exactly. They run a very real risk of ending up looking the the folks who were standing outside Central High in 1957, screaming epithets at the black kids trying to go to school.
Or the isolationists after Pearl Harbor.
It makes sense if you assume that their objections are unfounded. But that’s not what you said in your OP. I’m thinking that you don’t really want to allow that possibility. If the current HC bill passes, and if their objections are correct, things will be worse down the road.
…which is part of why I tried to clarify it for you.
I’m thinking that you shouldn’t quit your day job to become a mind-reader. 
I’m trying to leave the correctness (or not) of Republican objections out of it as much as possible. And the hypothetical future I’m thinking most about is the one where the current HC bill doesn’t pass, and as a result things just continue on as they have been, and HC costs get so high that in another 10 years there’s increased popular demand for an even more liberal HC bill than the ones currently under consideration.
I’m not trying to make the question any more complicated than that.
But what evidence is there that their objections are correct? As I’ve written, universal health care is not a theory - there are dozens of systems that have been in effect for decades and are working.
Well, I’m just trying to be a reader, not a mind reader. If you want to leave the correctness (or not) out, fine. That’s not what you wrote in your OP, though. I mean, if you wanted to leave that out, why was the very first thing you wrote in your OP:
Anyway, you can just assume I’m being thick and forget about this. I’m not really interested in pursuing it any further.
Yes - but you’re overlooking The American Exceptionalism side. Americans, despite being part of God’s Own Greatest Country are also uniquely incompetent when it comes to government (as opposed, say, to organising stable financial systems and affordable private health care that works) and uniquely greedy when it comes to public services.
In other words - they’ve got nuthin’ which is why they scream like stuck pigs about socialism and death panels.
Essentially, the Republicans are voting entirely from a partisan position. The primary criterion for supporting a bill is whether it would bring credit and prestige to Obama and the Democrats. If it would, then it must be opposed as vociferously as possible, with all due attempts to stomp on any meaningful debate, regardless of whether the proposal has any actual merit.
The good of the Nation is a distant second to preventing Obama from finding success of any kind; that much is clear.
Well, in case anyone else is still confounded: I think that my above quote is fairly synonymous with “Whether or not their anti-reform arguments are correct…” And I included that line because, given the nature of the rest of the OP, I didn’t want readers to start from the assumption that their arguments were incorrect.
As I said, I’d rather this debate focus on the possible future where Republicans are successful in killing the current round of HC reform, and afterward the country’s HC costs go up so drastically that the people become more open to UHC or single-payer a decade from now. That seems to me a likely possibility.
And were all of those plans implemented under the same conditions and political compromise that presides in THIS country? Did they have the same history of decades of our current health care system acting as inertia? Were their citizens equally divided on which course they wanted to take? Were the choices the same?
Because if not, my point is that the comparison you are tossing off here is essentially meaningless. Whatever we do end up with (assuming we end up with anything new at all, or just some cosmetic reforms of what we already have), will not be the (perhaps) optimal system originally proposed by the Dems…it will be a compromise system that is influenced by the Pubs, with much of it so changed as to bear little resemblance to the original proposal.
I’m not saying it can’t work. I’m saying it might NOT work here, under the current circumstances. I’m willing to gloss over the fact that UHC has problems in many of the countries you mentioned, and that it’s not universally loved in those countries, and concede that it can work. That doesn’t mean it WILL work here, given how our two party opposition system works. And, getting back to the OP, there are several ways I can see it being a boon or a bust to either party. So…it will depend on how all this plays out.
I’m not assuming it won’t work…I’m pointing out the possibility it might not. You seem to be operating mainly on faith here, trying to compare it in an apples to oranges manner with a whole host of other countries. It MIGHT work here in whatever watered down form it finally takes, and it MIGHT be PERCEIVED to be better (by the majority of voters) than our current system, in which case the Dems MIGHT capitalize on this for more votes. Conversely, it MIGHT not ever get passed (certainly UHC isn’t going to any time soon), or some watered down version MIGHT get past which is PERCEIVED as being less useful, more expensive, worse, etc etc, than our current system for the majority of voters. I can see both outcomes, given our political system, either seemingly as likely to me. Trying to bury your head in the sand and point at what other countries have done and then conclude that this automatically means that it will work just as well (or work at all) here in the US ignores historical, cultural and political differences between the US and those other countries.
Guess we’ll see. I think that there is the potential for a lot of bubble bursting for many 'dopers on this subject down the road. To me this is similar logic to ‘No WAY will Bush get re-elected. Kerry is going to win by a landslide!’…
-XT
Tommy Douglas who started the Canadian Heath Care system, was voted the greatest Canadian of all time.
The repubs are taking a huge risk with throwing monkey wrenches into the reformation of the health care system. If it fixes the system and provides health care across the country, the people will remember who cared about them and who did not.
Given that Dems control the House, Senate, and White House, and by substantial margins in the case of Congress, I think a more likely outcome is that some kind of compromise bill gets passed (as xtisme mentions). This compromise will be the worst of both worlds.
In that scenario, Republicans can gain in the public eye. Dems controlled Congress, passed a bill, and health care costs continued to go up, as did taxes, and the bill didn’t cover all the uninsured.
As the CBO points out, the Democratic proposals do little or nothing to address the root causes of health care inflation. Thus passing an enormously expensive bill that increases the deficit and has little or no effect on health care costs is shooting yourself in the foot, but Democrats are the ones with their finger on the trigger.
“We have to do something; this is something, therefore we have to do it” is not a good basis for policy decisions, and it is not necessarily true that nothing could be worse than doing nothing.
Liberal pundits, the MSM, and the SDMB no doubt will do their best to blame the Republicans for whatever happens when the Democrats control the White House, House and Senate, but they don’t have the stranglehold they used to on the media, so it remains to be seen what will happen and who will be blamed for it.
Sure, if the rosy predictions of future bliss when once Obama signs whatever he signs come true, then Republicans will be hurt and Dems will benefit. If, on the other hand, Obama signs something and in two years time the deficit is still a trillion and a half a year and nearly half the uninsured are still without coverage, and health care costs continue to rise, then - not so much.
Regards,
Shodan
I was referring to the touching it part. If he had succeeded, who knows what would have happened next? Even he was smart enough to know he couldn’t get away with a proposal to eliminate it. But once they started, more and more of the contribution would go to the investment accounts, and poof, one big 401K! Remember, Dopers right here said that the market had never, ever gone down over a 10 year period. You could look it up.
I like that you’re willing to gloss over this. But first please show it to be true. Then you can gloss over it.
Respectfully, I think it is you who understood the Republican proposals to “privatize” social security. The Republican investment banker bosses saw a huge pile and income of money that they wanted to put into the market and bid prices up. If the individual accounts lost money, well then, no bailouts for those individual accounts because each individual account is too small to worry about failing. It’s the same thing with pushing various equity schemes to unlock the equity in the homes of people on fixed income: if these small individual “investors” are too stupid to not know they shouldn’t do something, then tough, everything they ever saved is gone. That’s the market working to sort out the ignorant.
Social security is needed for people who should not be in the market. The Republicans, using Bush as their front, wanted to entice them into disposing of all or part of their social security this way.
Combine that with the big trading houses like Goldman using ultra fast trading to peek at their clients own trades to trade against them, and it would have been sheep to the slaughter. Which is pretty much is until the peek rules are changed.
Only to a relatively moderate degree. Bush’s broadest proposal was that some people would be able to invest up to a third of the social security payments rather than pay it in as taxes if they chose. So even if that plan had been enacted (and it never came close) the majority of the system would have remained as is.
Yes, Bush tried to destroy Social Security - The New York Times According to Pal Krugman killing Social Security was tha plan. Bush made no secret of his hatred of Social Security back in Texas. For some weird reason he actually believed he had a mandate and went after it hard. It also blew up in his face.
It was a plan to kill social security, pure and simple. Just like a small public option is a plan for an open public option for whoever wants it eventually.
There are people who have social security as their only income. Once they lost that “portion” they would then have that much less than the poverty line.
As another poster has pointed out, Bush was openly against social security before he ran for president. The Republican party has been trying to destroy social security since it was first proposed. Social security is the deadly enemy of Republicans because Republicans want the poor to starve and die. Online Bookstore: Books, NOOK ebooks, Music, Movies & Toys | Barnes & Noble®