Among many conservatives, yes. Not me. I acknowledge that government does some things better. keeping health care costs down, for example, since the government has greater bargaining power.
Not if the tax is less than the premiums, which for many will be the case.
According to wiki, the UK, Canada and Taiwan all run a form of single payer, each having a higher average lifespan than the US. By “private insurance company run like a public utility” (paraphrasing), do you mean something like Andorra, which has a mandate?
Like Switzerland and Germany and Japan. The Netherlands is also multi-payer. France, generally considered the #1 system in the world, is also multi-payer.
France does not have a multi-payor system. There are separate funds for farm employees and the self-employed, but everyone is covered by a government-administered policy.
It is a universal health care system, but is not a single-payer system. It features a mix of public and private services, relatively low expenditure, high patient success rates and low mortality rates,[12] and high consumer satisfaction.[13] Its aims are to combine low cost with flexibility of patient choice as well as doctors’ autonomy.[14]
Historian Paul Dutton claims that while many in the US deride the French system as “socialized medicine,” the French do not consider their mixed public and private system “socialized” and the population tends to look down upon British- and Canadian-style socialized medicine.[14]
It’s as close to a single payor system as actually exists; like every other country, there are private supplemental plans. You can read about it from an authoritative source here (financial stuff starts on page 43).
Canada and Britain are true single payer systems. There aren’t “funds”, the government pays the bills directly, in the same fashion as the US’s Medicare system, and in the case of Canada, cash for basic care is against the law(although a Quebec court ruled that this law violates human rights).
Your source describes the French system as a mixed system. Now I notice that sometimes single payer supporters use single payer a synonym for “universal health care” primarily paid for by the government, even if indirectly and even if there’s a role for private insurance. It’s technically wrong, but in common enough usage that I won’t quibble if that’s what you’re talking about.
It’s not “technically wrong”. It means funding comes from the government via taxation, which is how the French system works. If you exclude systems with any private funding, then even the NHS isn’t a single payer system because you are free to purchase supplemental private coverage.
According to your source, the French system involves “numerous actors and sources of finance.”
Are you under the impression that private insurance is not possible in the UK?
Can you buy private insurance to provide the same services the NHS does? Or is only supplemental legal? That’s a key distinction.
Up to urgent medical care centres. In fact, after going digging, I found out that a UK citizen with the highest rate of comprehensive health insurance with no copay that I could find still pays less for healthcare than the average US citizen.
Unless you wanted to point out that there’s no opt out scheme, which I think is a facile argument. As far as I’m aware, parents whose children attend a private school in the US have deductions from their tax as they aren’t using the state education provisions. Which is somewhat insipid, as one isn’t paying for the education of one’s child, one is paying for an educated populace, just as military expenditures are paying for a protected populace (ostensibly at any rate, in both cases). One may as well ask for a deduction as one doesn’t plan on going to Afghanistan any time soon.
Either.
This is not true, though Republicans are fighting for vouchers that would subsidize private education.
Nope. Only college tuition is deductible.
Thanks for the clarification.
They’re fighting to give parents more control in a system that is already subsidizing education.
Parents deserve control. They don’t deserve money to send their children to private schools.
They’re fighting to get state money into the coffers of parochial schools.