An interesting parallel between single payer and free trade agreements.

[DanTex]

86. Everyone knows that corporations only care about profit. That's a given.

It doesn't mean that free trade is bad. Virtually all economists agree that free trade is a good thing, including liberal economists like Krugman. Free Trade Agreements are a different matter, because they include things that aren't related to free trade and reducing tariffs. But as far as the question of free trade versus protectionism, there isn't much doubt that free trade is better in general.

Cheaper goods is not an unalloyed good. Denying this is stupid. Yes we are remotely and not so remotely losing the ability to support ourselves. We no longer manufacture clothing or furniture in this country, except for small-scale specialized enterprises. What we do is ship our raw goods overseas -- using fossil fuels to do so -- and then import those same goods as finished products, again using fossil fuels to do so. Do you really not see the environmental costs of doing things this way?

Yes, it is an unalloyed good. Certain ways of getting cheaper goods have downsides, in which case such a policy would have both costs and benefits. But cheaper goods are definitely a clear benefit. The question, in all cases, is whether the benefits outweigh the costs.

Some of the costs you cite are real, for example environmental damage. The solution to that (or a solution) is a carbon tax, to raise the cost of burning fossil fuels up to the point where it reflects the true cost including externalities. Other costs you cite are fictitious. Whether our clothes or furniture are made in the US or not makes no inherent difference.

Lower quality goods are obviously a harm. As a consumer the solution to this is to buy more expensive, higher-quality goods. And things made abroad are not always lower quality, this varies. For a long time cars made in Japan were higher quality than American cars. That was a big benefit to American consumers.

But to get back to health care: if you truly think that $200 on consumer goods can be equated to $200 on health care then I don't think we can have a productive discussion. Your thinking is totally bottom-line and dollar-driven. My thinking is that we must consider the underlying reality: societal, environmental, human well-being.

I am thinking about the underlying reality, and human well-being in particular. If a family saves $200, that's $200 of extra standard of living for that family, regardless of where it came from. Obviously, if a family saves $200 on healthcare versus $100 on other things, they would prefer the healthcare savings (and vice versa). But, to the extent that a household spends their money on a certain group of goods and services, saving money on any of those things will yield basically the same benefit to them. I don't see why this is even controversial.

BTW, I do agree that health care for all can be achieved in various ways. But you need to realize, that in those countries where the private sector is still a part of their universal health care, those private entities are highly regulated. In this country, we have hobbled our own government from negotiating drug prices, and we have made it illegal for our own citizens to buy their drugs out of country -- when the same drugs in this country can cost hundreds of times more. Our own government and corporations consider us citizens -- oh, excuse me, consumers -- to be a captive source of revenue, nothing more. It's just wrong.

I agree, the healthcare industry needs to be more heavily regulated, including better price negotiation tools. But Obamacare was a huge step forwards, and given that Single Payer is a political impossibility, a much more fruitful road at the moment is to expand on Obamacare. Too often here on DU I've read that if you're not for single payer, then you aren't for universal coverage, and you're some kind of Republican light corporate apologist.