Your first point about Rattner, he being in the Obama administration and not just a Wall Street guy is not a good example since he being both is a problem. They only see center right, profit driven models for health care solutions.

Your second point is that most industrialized nations do not have single payer, which is true. You forgot Taiwan, which after looking at systems around the world used our Medicare for All system to create theirs. The documentary “Sick Around the World” outlines many of Europe's healthcare systems. England has a true socialized plan, Germany one with health care companies but they are not allowed to profit. Switzerland is mixed (see the documentary to get a better handle on who does what). But in all of them, no one goes bankrupt due to health care costs and all are cheaper, some almost by half. They have everyone in, and nobody out, as we do here. Profit and not “health insurance” are not the motives of their systems, “health care” is. That is a fundamental difference. And, there is no reason the government cannot be the price risker.You seem to think that only profiteers can do so. Not sure why. Insurance companies are not good at deciding price, but are very good at denying medical procedures based on cost not need. You must have never been denied a procedure recommended by your doctor before, which is a common practice. Why should those who value so much freedom decide to let an insurance company be the decider between you and your doctor is beyond me.

There are a lot of things government can do to keep costs down. For example, every hospital feels the need to have all the latest gizmos for health care, which produces an overabundance of machinery and results in higher costs. For example, we know how many woman we have in America, thus we know how many breasts are in America (to use an example from a doctor who supports single-payer). Thus, we know how may machines we need and the government can put resources around need rather than competitive institutions.

You cite failures in the ACA, which is good, but the ACA is a corporate driven model which is riddled with problems. A expanded and improved Medicare model, like Medicare itself, would be much cheaper to run since it would eliminate the need for doctors to hire the many paper pushers they now do to sift their way through the over 1200 insurance plans. It can put in induces for doctors to do preventative care, which would lower costs (like England does now. See Moore’s “Sicko” for examples). It can make sure that under served, rural communities have access to good care rather than letting profiteers decide who gets the services. N fact, Medicare operates more efficiently. See this: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.013390/full/

The blanket dismissal of Medicare for All doesn’t pass the smell test, and I wonder if you don’t have a horse in the race to make such a claim. Conservatives are traditionally against public programs because they see everything as a way to make profit, and they naturally claim that private industry is more efficient. This is not a truism and is actually false in many examples because profit driven industries only concern, a legal concern, is to maximize profit for shareholders, and as we have seen in the last forty years, to enrich CEO’s and board members.

Medicare for All can work, and is based on the shared, communal idea that we are all in this thing called life together. It is not based on profit, but on human rights. Those are two quite different ethics. Though I am no longer religious, it seems to me most religions are very concerned with how we treat one another, the shared motive if you will; and in a just society that should always takes precedence over the profit motive, the self interested motive.

Socialist, unionist, anti-imperialist, anti-racist, internationalist, and a fairly nice guy too. Let's make some change.

Socialist, unionist, anti-imperialist, anti-racist, internationalist, and a fairly nice guy too. Let's make some change.