The Atlantic- The Last Temptation- Evangelicals in the Age of Trump

[WillReadmore]

@Bassman

I agree that universal health coverage is important and is something we can and should have, but I disagree that a single-payer system is the best way to achieve that. I’m going to refer you to this article by Dana Goldman that I think gives good reasons to do a universal catastrophic system as opposed a single-payer system. We can do better than single-payer at a cost less than the ACA.

I basically agree with you, although perhaps I’m more sympathetic to opponents of legal abortion.

She uses the CA cost estimate as a justification.

However, the cost estimate for the CA single payer system was almost exactly what they currently pay for healthcare in that state. That is, those OPPOSED to single payer in CA managed to do no better than claiming what is essentially a “same cost” argument!

Then, as a substitute, she proposes a system that is at least as complex (quite possibly more so) as our current system of mixed categories (by age, income, military service), sliding payment scales, inclusion of insurance companies, and expansion of the government role. And, she does so WITHOUT a cost estimate. In fact, she points to complexities in Medicare as an argument, but then does nothing to resolve those complexities. In fact, those issues could just as well extend into her own design.

In my view, these analyses are ridiculously weighted toward special interests and partisan absolutes.

Every other industrialized nation is doing better.

Some countries DO have less than full coverage. As I’ve stated, I’m not opposed to that. One COULD characterize those plans as being more toward “catastrophic” coverage, as there is no statement of what would or would not be covered by the single payer system that the USA might design for itself.

[WillReadmore]

@Kimstu

Possible miscommunication here? I am not WillReadmore and cannot speak for yadda yadda yadda,* but I interpreted his remark as just meaning that since an abortion is almost always about terminating an unwanted pregnancy,** and since unwanted pregnancies are by definition something that people don’t want, we would all prefer fewer unwanted pregnancies and consequently fewer abortions.

That doesn’t contradict the point you appear to be making about not necessarily wanting to reduce the proportion of abortions to unwanted pregnancies, a point on which I agree with you.

• Can we have “IAN [username] ACSFH” as a new SDMB acronym? I get tired of typing it out but need some way of making it clear that I’m not just trying to impose my interpretation on the other poster’s possibly different intention.
• The very rare late-term abortions generally involve a wanted pregnancy that’s gone wrong in some way with catastrophic consequences for the fetus or potentially the mother’s health, but these form a tiny minority of all abortions.

I approve this message - right on target.

The problem does start with pregnancies that aren’t wanted.