late wrote:Since you are arguing for a public/private split, you didn't mean unified.
But I know what you mean.
That's part of an unified system, if there's a common insurance pool. The common pool is a good idea because it allows for risk sharing, thereby lowering premiums for everyone (or, if funded through taxation, having everyone pay taxes for funding the healthcare system allows for setting a lower tax rate to that effect).
Even if there are multiple payers, there can be compensation mechanisms that in practice create this insurance pool.
When I say the US healthcare system isn't unified, I mean that there's no such risk sharing. And that makes the system more expensive for everyone, including those of us who do pay for health insurance.
Tainari88 wrote:The majority of American voters want universal single payer healthcare done through the government. That is a fact. The issue is that the Congress and the Senate are going against the majority of US voters. Why? Powerful health insurance lobbyists buying their votes to block it from coming to pass.
So the issue is not if the majority do not want it--but that the politicians are crooked and sellouts.
How to cope with that? Mass voting constantly and pressuring the sellouts till they resign. Putting in congress people and senators who will either do single payer universal health care of be voted out immediately.
Got to get tough on the sellouts. That is the answer.
Pew Center stats:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -coverage/
Among the public overall, 63% of U.S. adults say the government has the responsibility to provide health care coverage for all, up slightly from 59% last year. Roughly a third (37%) say this is not the responsibility of the federal government, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted July 27 to Aug. 2 among 11,001 adults.
When asked how the government should provide health insurance coverage, 36% of Americans say it should be provided through a single national government program, while 26% say it should continue to be provided through a mix of private insurance companies and government programs. This is a change from about a year ago, when nearly equal shares supported a “single payer” health insurance program (30%) and a mix of government programs and private insurers (28%).
This is interesting but 37% against is not a low number. If you take the UK, you can find widespread dissatisfaction with the NHS (because of longer wait times) yet over 80% agree with its general principles ("
As in 2021, a large majority of respondents agreed that the founding principles of the NHS should ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ apply in 2022: that the NHS should be free of charge when you need it (93 per cent), the NHS should primarily be funded through taxes (82 per cent) and the NHS should be available to everyone (84 per cent).")
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publicatio ... -care-2022What's interesting is that 37% is still probably lower than it used to be, which helps explain why is it that voters in red states have voted to expand Medicaid. Unlike zoning, this problem does seem to be solving itself - but, ultimately, it needs to be made clear we all have to contribute to funding. Yes, even low income households, according to their means and supplemented by taxation if necessary.