Here is single-payer health care in a nutshell:
1. People are forced to buy something that they don't seem to want
2. Provided by a monopoly
3. Paid for by higher taxes
If you need a more nuanced discussion, follow the links at Tim Worstall, but I think my description pretty much sums it up.
Here is current health care in a nutshell:
1. People are forced to buy something that they don't need.
2. A monopoly of providers.
3. Paid for by higher insurance premiums.
No, not really John.
Actually, John may be correct for Mass under RomneyCare, but I don't know if that was the situation he was referring to.
Under many employer group plans, the employee cannot opt out of coverage. In my state (and probably others), the empoyees can be required to pay however much of the premium cost the employer chooses to pass on, so long as it doesn't reduce wages below the minimum wage rate.
I don't know if that's what John was talking about or not.
John, I don't think ANYone has argued that the current system is optimal. The question is whether the current "monopoly of providers" as you call it should be replaced with a stronger monopoly or competition.
1. something that is not available (insurance is poor substitute for lifetime care)
2. funded by a monoply (no need for a single supplier)
3. and lower fees
you just described the fire department.
should we get rid of that?