The argument in favor is financial. But anyone with halfway decent medical coverage - tech workers, government employees, retirees, union workers, etc, it’s almost certainly going to go down.
Part of the reason is that Americans do get pretty decent care when they can afford it.
I can tell you personal horror stories about my time in Europe and ex-Europe.
I’d say the real problem in America isn’t even payment - it’s how medical information is siloed and treated like proprietary data. Usually under the guise of patient privacy.
I'm not a proponent of single payer because I don't think it addresses the root problem of the absolutely broken anti-patient incentives of a system that has long ago been destroyed by bureaucracy. But I'm not an opponent of single payer either - I just don't think it's the panacea people think it is.
I totally agree. Payment isn’t the problem.
But I’ve had similar experiences with doctors in European and ex-European nations.
If I could make one change to the healthcare system, it would be a universal healthcare records system.
It’s nuts this is treated like it’s proprietary data.
My problem with your previous comment is that you just baselessly asserted that healthcare standards would go down with single payer, which is a common political talking point that completely ignores how the industry has already been captured and destroyed by private corporate bureaucracy (ie we already have "death panels", only they each consist of a single malpracticing doctor with a computer algorithm and an autosigner). Payment isn't the underlying problem of why healthcare is so bad, but it's certainly another problem for many people who go receive (shoddy) healthcare, and then afterwards end up at the pointy end of fraudulent billing shakedowns.
Not for core health care competencies. That wouldn’t be universal coverage.
When I say “quality would go down” in talking about actual health care.
Having a system where you have to pay extra to have a good doctor sound suspiciously like the current system, except it’s usually your employer paying extra.
Yes, as an upper-middle-class salaryman, my care is above average. If I don't like what Uncle Sam provides, I can buy additional coverage/care. No change for me.
For everybody with worse coverage and less income? They're already receiving worse care than most of Western Europe.
My personal point of reference: Scottish immigrant, with substatial family in Scotland, Ireland, and Australia. Both white collar and working class.
>"In 2022, private health insurance coverage continued to be more prevalent than public coverage, at 65.6 percent and 36.1 percent, respectively."
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-28...
Arguably, private insurance will still exist for the upper class. So the top 10% or so will likely be unaffected. It would just further increase any inequality that currently exists. (The current proposals are Medicare for all and not a state run facilities)
Medicare as it currently exists is not “free at point of service”, or even “affordable at point of service.” There’s the Medicare gap, etc.
Medicare isn’t really set up to be a universal program. It assumes that providers have non-Medicare patients, and regularly uses that fact to calibrate the program.
