Arnold Kling  

Single-Payer Health Care

PRINT
How to Increase Support for Fr... An Alternative to Single-Payer...

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.


Comments and Sharing





COMMENTS (7 to date)
John Booke writes:

Or

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.

R. S. Porter writes:

No, not really John.

Jody writes:

Actually, John may be correct for Mass under RomneyCare, but I don't know if that was the situation he was referring to.

Andrew writes:

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.

Josh writes:

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.

Lord writes:

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

Nick writes:

you just described the fire department.

should we get rid of that?

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top