I agree that this [non-]“system” is a disaster – it costs more than twice as much per capita than UHC in Canada and three times the OECD average while leaving over 26 million without insurance and putting everyone else through the grind of endless paperwork and risk of claims denial. I contend that this sort of thing is inevitable if you don’t have an integrated and well-regulated universal health care system, and the most efficient implementation of that is single-payer.
What I find confusing is that in the past you seem to have argued against any form of single-payer and that the current system is actually pretty good. For example (from the linked post):
When the federal government forces everyone into one system, I worry about how well that holds up over time as the politics of the nation ebbs and flows.
I think private insurance schemes have been very helpful at times to help control costs, experimenting with networking, contracting, care organizations, and the like. It’s also allowed different employers to attract good employees. It’s different than just paying bills. Companies have come up with a variety of approaches that can help. And having private providers and insurers gives an opportunity for more experimentation, especially within different state markets.
If I were designing something from scratch, I wouldn’t have the US system. But it’s what we have, and I think it’s not as bad as people make it out to be. 90% of people are covered with something, and about 85% of them are happy with what they have. In any other issue, that’s a strong consensus.
Are you now more inclined to support some form of UHC?