Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Anger in Sweden as elderly pay price for coronavirus strategy [View all]LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)You are stuck on semantics. Swizerland and those like them that use the private industry as implentors of universal coverage, are like the St. Bernards to say the British bulldogs. Both are canine. The US is a cat. A different species. Always wants to do things their own way and doesn't care what anyone else thinks
Again from your link:
In most cases, universal coverage and a single-payer system go hand-in-hand, because a country's federal government is the most likely candidate to administer and pay for a health care system covering millions of people.
I did admit that they may not technically be called the same thing, in every case. But it still requires by law the total population to contribute to the health coverage for all. And government guaranteed quality. Call it what you want. Multi-single payer?
And if, as in Switzerland, 25% of the population cannot afford the Obamacare type private insurance that has doubled in price, THERE IS GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO PAY YOUR PREMIUM. (link above) Which all amounts to the same damn thing. At least as far as the main principle of medical insurance garanteed as a right to their citizens.
Those countries that use or allow private insurers, those insurers MUST FOLLOW FEDERAL LAW IN COVERING EVERYONE AND PROVIDING BASIC INSURANCE WITH NO PRECONDITIONS. AND....EVERYONE MUST PAY INTO HEALTH INSURANCE EITHER THROUGH A TAX OR A PREMIUM. However you want to define that, if not "single payer" that's okay by me. But whatever that is, that is what progressives want. That is our big blue herring. Oh, plus 85% of other Democrats, and 70% of all Americans.
If you can't understand the astronomical difference in principle of federal oversight, standards, a law for basic universal coverage ....between the US and European countries, and how that is the central basic premise of universal healthcare, and how a "single payer" that is the total population that must pay by law into it, EVEN IF THROUGH PRIVATE COMPANIES in order for it to work, then I give up.
And my thoughts on the 10th amendment were just an added thought. I thought I threw you a bone, speaking of dogs. I agree that any kind of federally oversought(?) M4A, or even any technically not single payer, but universally mandated program would not be easy. You don't think this would be a problem? It certainly was and is for Obamacare. Sorry to confuse you with that amendment.