> The fact that there is a captive audience, as you suggest, means that we cannot just shovel money into it.
I think the argument for single-payer is that the buyers of healthcare now have a monopsony to drive down costs with.
I think the argument for single-payer is that the buyers of healthcare now have a monopsony to drive down costs with.
If concentration of power was good we'd just find a few wise persons to run the country and leave it all up to them. Other than the little snag, the sinle buyer argument would work.
Giving the individual the money to make their choices is a better way to ensure that people get what they want. A universal healthcare plan (irrespective of how it is funded) because different people -- or even the same person at different stages of their life -- don't have the same needs and the same risk profiles.