While we could develop a multi payer, non profit healthcare system as several other countries have done, why would we? I doesn't save as much money and have the benefits of single payer by simplifying administration for providers. It encourages the continuation of Networks. You're basically talking about Option B that was studied by our Washington State Universal Healthcare Advisory Workgroup that only saved 783 million over our current for-profit multi payer system. Whereas, Option A, our states single payer model studied by the workgroup would save 5 billion dollars a year. If we are going to overhaul the system, why would we not create the most cost effective system available, that has been proven to cost less and have better outcomes?
Required federal waiver is still the elephant in the room. You cite Khanna's bill to deal with that. Why would Congress pass his bill while it remains opposed to single payer?
I'm not sure how feasible "state single payer" is, at least given the current power of corporate oligarchs and ultrareactionaries in all branches of government, but above all in the courts. But there's still a lot we can do to attack the problem short of single payer, including "all-payer" (adopted in Maryland, notably), and the fuller development of healthcare nonprofits that integrate a more progressive or even radical understanding of "social determinants of health" into their practices, having doctors, drug counselors, social workers, and more working together. Merrill Goozner's "Gooznews" blog covers this beat well.
While we could develop a multi payer, non profit healthcare system as several other countries have done, why would we? I doesn't save as much money and have the benefits of single payer by simplifying administration for providers. It encourages the continuation of Networks. You're basically talking about Option B that was studied by our Washington State Universal Healthcare Advisory Workgroup that only saved 783 million over our current for-profit multi payer system. Whereas, Option A, our states single payer model studied by the workgroup would save 5 billion dollars a year. If we are going to overhaul the system, why would we not create the most cost effective system available, that has been proven to cost less and have better outcomes?
Thank you! It made me hopeful for the future of healthcare.
Required federal waiver is still the elephant in the room. You cite Khanna's bill to deal with that. Why would Congress pass his bill while it remains opposed to single payer?
I'm not sure how feasible "state single payer" is, at least given the current power of corporate oligarchs and ultrareactionaries in all branches of government, but above all in the courts. But there's still a lot we can do to attack the problem short of single payer, including "all-payer" (adopted in Maryland, notably), and the fuller development of healthcare nonprofits that integrate a more progressive or even radical understanding of "social determinants of health" into their practices, having doctors, drug counselors, social workers, and more working together. Merrill Goozner's "Gooznews" blog covers this beat well.