Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×
User Journal

damn_registrars's Journal: Obamacare is Not a Single-Payer Conspiracy [Bloomberg] 29 29

Even columnists at conservative news sources are coming to realize it. This is from the same woman who wrote that Vermont's single payer aspirations would be terrible for taxpayers.

If Obamacare's insurance reforms break the market, that calculus still won't change: Most people will still have insurance they like, and they will not be willing to give it up in order to solve problems in the individual market -- which now covers about 5 percent of the population and is expected to ultimately cover something over that. Even if the individual market functionally disappears, most people will still be covered, and most politicians will be unwilling to endorse a program that takes away what they have. There is no path to single payer from even a spectacular Obamacare implosion -- for the same reason that there was no path to single payer before Obamacare was passed.

...

Ironically, single payer seems much more plausible if the system succeeds. One possible path along which the health-care law could develop is that more and more employers dump folks onto the exchanges, breaking the link between employment and insurance for millions of Americans. If that happens but other problems remain -- such as rising premiums -- then you can imagine a series of reforms that ultimately leads to single payer, probably starting with a public option. Employers would probably still provide supplemental health insurance as a benefit, the way some do in the U.K., but it would be a relatively cheap add-on, not a huge portion of your compensation package.

So dash your hopes and allay your fears. An Obamacare failure would be bad in many ways, and it would mean significant changes for the insurance market. But we're not getting the National Health Service anytime soon.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obamacare is Not a Single-Payer Conspiracy [Bloomberg]

Comments Filter:
  • McArdle is astute, combining some actual knowledge of economics (in contrast to Krugman [wordpress.com]).
    However, if there is anything in which I have confidence, it is this administration's commitment to slow, methodical, blame-laden screwings of the lower- and middle-class.

    But we're not getting the National Health Service anytime soon.

    No, that suppository arrives with the Clinton Administration. I reckon she's wreckin'.

    • However, if there is anything in which I have confidence, it is this administration's commitment to slow, methodical, blame-laden screwings of the lower- and middle-class.

      Really? My taxes went up less this year than they did under any year of a president from the GOP. I don't agree with many of President Lawnchair's policies (at least, the ones he has actually enacted), but they have hurt less than the ones that were proposed by endorsed candidates from your party.

      But we're not getting the National Health Service anytime soon.

      No, that suppository arrives with the Clinton Administration.

      I see you read the article. Or, at least, you read some part of it. Apparently some parts meant more to you than others, as the article rather plainly lays out how there exists no path from the Health Insuran

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      However, if there is anything in which I have confidence, it is this administration's commitment to slow, methodical, blame-laden screwings of the lower- and middle-class.

      In what way has the lower and middle class been screwed by the present administration? I'll agree that the previous administration was great for the rich and crappy for everyone else, but I posit it's slowly improving.

      The lower and middle classes have been getting royally screwed for at least half my life, and I retired earlier this year.

      • No, that suppository arrives with the Clinton Administration. I reckon she's wreckin'.

        I certainly hope so, it would be nice for the US to raise to the level of the rest of the industrialized world from our historically barbaric health care "system". American health care is far from #1 in any measure except cost; ours is the most expensive. It's neither logical nor rational.

        I couldn't agree with you more, although I don't see any way that any future president in the next several decades will be able to successfully bring about as much as a single payer option for our country, let alone a full single payer system for the entire country. I expect I'll be 6 feet under long before that happens (unless our country itself finally fractures into two (or more) completely separate countries).

        For the record, I have been advocating for single payer health care for over two decades.

      • As to Clinton, if she's elected and half as good as her husband the country will be in fine shape.

        Yeah, her record as SecState is only less marked by accomplishment than her stint in the Senate.

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          What worries me about her is that she was in charge of Clinton's single-payer plan, and screwed it up royally. So far I don't like any of the candidates from either major party.

          Either way I'll probably vote either Libertarian or Green. I cannot support a candidate who wants me in prison. The only way she'll get my vote is if the Republicans screw up in their Presidential nominations like they did with Illinois' Governor's race. They had one excellent candidate, two acceptable and a tea party billionaire who

          • I cannot support a candidate who wants me in prison.

            Similarly, I cannot support a candidate who wants me unemployed. I find that if I am left with a choice between a candidate who wants me unemployed, and a candidate who will only make it difficult for me to further my career (and a bunch of fringe candidates who don't care about it one way or the other) then I will use my vote to try to prevent the candidate who wants me unemployed from rising to power.

            • You are so fished in... your voting record is excellent, the state is proud of you.

              • I don't see how becoming unemployed would benefit me. You certainly have not made a case for that.

                For that matter, you haven't really pleaded much of a case for doing anything at all. You mock people for the decisions that they make - you seem to mock them more when they actually state why they make a given choice - yet you don't really state any reason why they should make any particular other choice.

                So go ahead, tell me why I should vote for your candidate instead. As long as he isn't Ron Paul
                • Yes, yes, you can make a good case for voting for Stalin, if you're a grave digger who needs steady work. You are why I say the government and the politicians are not the problem. You reward corruption so you can keep your job, how quaint.

                  • Wow, again you offer no better option. Would you suggest that people should just not vote, as you cannot suggest a better candidate? Or would you like to opt for the pudge philosophy and tell us that we are actually not aware of our own needs and are thus voting against our own interests because we don't know what those interests are?
                    • It doesn't matter what I offer, your mind is set in stone, and you will continue to play your "lesser evil" charade, and we will hear the same old crap we heard in 2008, and in 2000, and in 1996, and in..., and I'm not interested. It deserves nothing but ridicule and mockery. The Party expects and welcomes your slavish and most submissive loyalty.

                      Grave diggers of the world, unite!

                    • We can agree: fustakrakich is a Critical Theory type. Point a finger and laugh. The one concrete idea I've ever gotten out of him is to do a purely random selection of political leaders (!).
                      After he bagged on Sarah Palin, I pointed out that his hypothetical idea could result in a Palin Administration.
                      His opinion may depend on which direction the wind is blowing, I suppose.
                    • How could you possibly support that notion when you haven't offered a single option yet? All I see are the candidates on the ballot. If you have one that is vastly superior tell me who they are and why I should vote for them.
                    • How could you possibly support that notion when you haven't offered a single option yet?

                      I can because I have. You dismissed it as nonsense and forgot about it. Since you're not interested, repeating myself would be a total waste, so I won't. I would only suggest that you not vote for somebody you complain about and then reelect anyway, and stop playing the helpless victim card, in fact, stop being the helpless victim, you're doing it by choice. If you want to be their fool, then, by all means. You are only

                    • How could you possibly support that notion when you haven't offered a single option yet?

                      I can because I have.

                      I do not recall you having done such a thing, ever. I know I have asked you more than once for your suggestion and every time I can recall, you have dodged the question.

                      You seem so certain in your belief that you know better than anyone else who everyone should vote for, yet you have never said who that is.

                      You dismissed it as nonsense and forgot about it.

                      There was nothing to dismiss, as you did not offer anything. I have asked you repeatedly and have never seen you to actually offer a candidate.

                      If you are half as smart as you portray yourself

                    • You're not helpless, you're hopeless, only useful as a punching bag.

                    • After he bagged on Sarah Palin, I pointed out that his hypothetical idea could result in a Palin Administration.

                      And I responded she wouldn't have the big money, the cronies, or the time to back up her craziness, so again, you got it wrong. And without that money, it might turn out that she is a perfectly rational person, able to honor her contracts to completion.

                      It seems to be true, you chronically tell only half the story to fit your narrative. Don't take it personal, d_r does the same thing.

                      Under the pres

                    • The post was as nonsensical as so many of your others, but I can't be sure.

                      Sarah Palin, d_r, one would be just as good (or bad) as the other. Throw their names into the hat, what the hell...

          • If they do I'll have to vote for Clinton.

            Oh jeeze! There you guys go again with your lesser evil routine. Oh well, there goes another election down the tubes.

            *sigh* Maybe 2020... when George P. runs against Chelsea

            • by mcgrew (92797) *

              When incompetence is pitted against extreme radicalism, I'll take incompetence any day. As bad as Quinn is, he's head and shoulders above Blago or Ryan. However, the Republican would have to be pretty bad, one I would fear would really screw the country up (anyone named "Bush" would do it). In likelihood I'll vote Greenie or Libbie, depending on their candidates.

              • No single republican or democrat can screw things up without lots of help, even somebody like Palin, Cruz, Lieberman, Pelosi, or Reid. I would prefer incompetent over crazy myself, but that doesn't mean I would ever vote for either. The "lesser evil" still only gives you evil. I don't knowingly vote for evil, lesser or greater. "Lesser evil" is true moral relativism, of a kind that even I find offensive. It illustrates the true meaning of hypocrisy and arrogance. And notably it is the democratic faction tha

                • by mcgrew (92797) *

                  I consider a vote for a Greenie or a Libbie a vote for "none of the above". When it comes to a state's Governor, he can screw that state up all by himself. Illinois was in good shape under Thompson and Edgar and went to hell under Ryan and Blago. A vote for someone who thinks government is always the problem and never the solution is a vote for a failed government.

        • It's comments like that that make me wonder if you didn't get your degree from the EIB Institute of Higher Learning. Success and accomplishment are not measured by your ancient ideological metric, not outside your head anyway.

A commune is where people join together to share their lack of wealth. -- R. Stallman

Working...