For all the coverage of the healthcare reform debate, there is one thing you almost never hear discussed: single-payer or nationalized healthcare.
I give Obama credit for trying to find a meaningful middle ground between a market-based system and a single-payer system — which is what his public health plan proposal is all about. But listening to the reform debate, you’d think Obama’s (politically) pragmatic approach and a free-market free-for-all are the only options.
My fear is that the unintended consequences of — for lack of a better phrase — a half-assed approach to reform may actually set us back further (see prior post).
That’s why like it or not single-payer or nationalized healthcare should be part of the debate. At the very least, it would help us better frame the pros, cons and consequences of what we’re being asked to sign onto.
As I’ve written before (see prior post), all healthcare systems have their shortcomings. But in the main, single-payer or nationalized systems are “equitable, humane and viable alternatives to a failing U.S. system.” Proponents deserve a seat at the table.
Subscribe in RSS Reader