Sorry, but I don't buy the "But we couldn't have gotten single-payer" defense

[ljm2002]

59. Not only that...

...but the very idea was so dangerous that those who supported the idea were forbidden from participating in the debate and were, in fact, arrested for trying to do so -- by Democratic lawmakers!

Yes, that was a truly democratic process, one that will warm the hearts of the corporate shills for years to come.

Whether it "could have passed" is entirely irrelevant. The real question is, why was it not allowed to even be discussed? We all know the answer: because the idea was too dangerous to consider, because to consider it would be to consider dismantling entirely the elaborate and very creaky Rube Goldberg mechanisms by which we deliver health care in this country -- mechanisms which are highly profitable for the insurance industry, and highly inefficient for doctors and their patients.

Here's a list of things that a single-payer system would address:

1 - no more tying health care to employment
a - freeing individuals to seek employment where they like, or work less, etc.
b - freeing employers to concentrate on core competencies rather than administering health insurance plans
c - freeing companies from the expenses of health insurance for employees, making them more competitive

2 - no more people letting their afflictions develop into emergencies before seeking treatment
a - meaning a healthier population overall
b - meaning less expensive healthcare overall since problems are caught early
c - meaning higher life expectancy and a better quality of life for the vast majority of our population

3 - no more mish mash of dozens of insurers to contend with
a - meaning doctor's offices no longer need a large staff just to deal with several insurance companies
b - meaning fewer random, arbitrary decisions by insurers as to what procedures and medications are covered
c - meaning a consistent set of standards that are applied across the board

Well none of this is news and I'm not trying to say that you or anyone else here disagrees with Single Payer in principle, and that's not the point anyway. Every system has its problems, and single payer would too. The point is, had the idea been allowed out there, it would have had many attractive features that may have swayed public opinion more in that direction, and that could have helped when it came time to push for retaining the public option, at the very least. But we'll never know, will we? Because TPTB, including this administration, made sure the idea was squashed, and hard, while the ACA was being crafted.

What does it say about our legislators when they are so scared of an idea that they arrest people who try to express that idea? To me, it says they are running scared, worried that their big $$$ donors will give them the boot. And what does that say about our so-called democracy? That is why "single payer never had a chance", and that is why we need courageous people in government rather than the bought and paid for shills we mostly have now.