General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Urban Institute analysis of Sanders Single Payer Plan: May 2016 [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)...say those with the facts.
Single Payer in 8 years (which is what Sanders wanted to do in this plan) is FAR more disruptive than incrementally expanding the ACA. There are different option with different levels of disruption - to simply say all disruption is the same, or somehow is less disruptive than our current system shows a lack of understanding of the situation.
" in which fifty-seven-year-olds are rolled in, or in which fifty-five-and-up can buy in somehow, that's a win...and the basis for more wins. " - which was HRC's plan, along with pushing for a public option.
Canada didn't go single payer until all the provinces had established their own independent systems, which took nearly 20 years then a very liberal government was elected, who switched it over to federal - and it was STILL being tweaked in 1989. That's not going to happen here - especially after Vermont's failed attempt, and Coloradocare being voted down last November.
So, no they didn't go from what we have to single payer, and they didn't do it in 9 years.
The UK went from NO system in the 20's expanding to what they have now. People in the 20's were just happy to have a doctor, let alone wanting to keep their primary physician, and there wasn't the expense of major medical procedures we have now, NICUs, MRIs, etc to cover. People died earlier then, and the cost wasn't as prohibitive to cover a person. People in the US have much, much higher expectations of coverage and care than Brits did in the 20's, and accepted far less as acceptable. I loved the care I got when I was there, because I had nothing before. The local clinic looked more like a DMV office, and you know that in this "anti-government" culture, people who have insurance now are not going to like that. So, no, they didn't go to Single Payer from what we have now.