RE: Healthcare in the USA...are there any GOOD arguments against a single payer system?
When u talk of paying extra taxes (in ur initial post), i presume that u refer to a single payer system as GOV pay for the healthcare!?! The ideology is good/ perfect! HOWEVER... The problem with that is that as a population gets older (which happens in ALL countries around the world), the next generations populus numbers shrink/ get smaller/ become less! This is where the IDEA is flawed/ incorrect/ doesnt work. In the UK - We have this EXACT PROBLEM happening. The NHS is at breaking-point, as our healthcare is TAX-FUNDED. The reason why I talk of Central Banks (my initial question to ur initial post) is because... ``As a population of a country (any/ ALL COUNTRIES) get older, the tax revenue received by GOV alters! In the UK/ U.S.A etc. etc. etc. taxes are generated by (mainly) working and spending money. This the second flaw with this IDEA! As a population ages, they dont work, they RETIRE!... and they dont COMMIT alot of money (spending) to buy the FAMILY HOME etc. etc. as they are not at that time in their lives! OAPs/ The elderly/ the aged/ pensioners etc. outweigh (in numbers/ mass) compared to the next generation (their children). AND then... their grandchildrens numbers/ mass rless in number! The NHS (in the UK) will eventually be privatised sooner, rather than later! Xx
Thank you for the well thought out post! I understand your point, but I still think a government single payer system could work. In the US we have social security and the government planned for the shrinking population and set aside enough money for the boomers. HOWEVER the funds were not protected by law and the government dipped into social security funds to pay for other things, hence the slight shortage we have now. This could all be avoided by simple language in the law saying taxes paid correlate to the population size and that funds cannot be allocated elsewhere. In this system I believe the US can still save money on healthcare.