Display:
Ok, point taken, but I meant it in the sense of an NHS type system, where government directly provides services, which is what a lot of single payer advocates want (and an idea I like as well).  In the strict sense you're addressing, it's another version of 'government insurance,' as is medicare, medicaid, the public option, etc., whether alongside private insurance or instead of it.  I don't see any broad sort of 'instead of it' support in this country, do you?  I don't see anything in the bill that's detrimental to people at the expense of industry, and nothing that rules out expansion of some sort of government insurance in some permutation.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 14th, 2010 at 08:47:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
detrimental to people at the expense of industry

damn - wrong there, too!  that sentence is all fucked up.  I meant, detrimental to people and to the benefit of the industry... or something....  obviously I don't re-read or self-edit much before hitting the post button...

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 14th, 2010 at 08:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In my experience with the single-payer movement here in California, where I play a small but possibly growing part, it is the Canadian model that most look to as their model. The NHS is respected but even most single-payer activists believe it is unrealistic to expect Americans to support government takeover of private hospitals and to directly employ physicians, even if it is a sensible move.

And the world will live as one
by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Sun Mar 14th, 2010 at 09:37:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series