Single payer vs Public option

This is all you need. Shove this in anyone's face who starts saying, "But, but, but . . . the guvvamint!" From a comment by Mikirivi on Krugman's blog, a graphic prepared by Dr. Klein for the Arizona League of Women Voters:
side by side comparison of the two options

The one solitary "disadvantage" that I can see in the Single Payer column is that the insurance industry would need restructuring. I seem to remember reading somewhere that that's over two million workers. So it's nontrivial. But as I remember reading in the same place, most of the skills in the insurance industry are various office skills and are eminently transferable to other fields. (We could even, like, you know, help people make the switch.)

So we could have a system that costs half as much and insures everyone ("Single Payer and beyond" section in the link), or a variant on the baroque BS we have now. The choice is obvious. Baroque BS, of course.

The whole thing is eerily reminiscent of the electric car vs GM debacle. On the one hand everyone wins and GM has to be restructured, whereas on the other hand everyone loses and GM . . . .


,

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus