Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Deb Richter's avatar

Mr Baldwin- this is a proposal to phase in a comprehensive health care system over time that is publicly funded and includes EVERYONE. t is worth noting that most systems around the world started with one sector of care- Canada- started with universal hospital care in Saskatchewan back in the 1960s and expanded over time to other sectors of care.Starting with primary care makes sense because it is relatively inexpensive and has a huge return on investment. It is the only sector that has been shown to improve the health of the population. The key points of any legislation must include everyone, be publicly funded, publicly accountable, public stewardship but can have private delivery of care. This is not a half measure ,everyone is included.

Expand full comment
Henry Moss's avatar

Universal primary care seems right. Everyone accesses care and public health improves. It would be affordable in broad terms.

However, as an incremental step toward universal single-payer health insurance, it would not work. Single-payer provides for huge administrative savings by eliminating the insurance middleman. It can also reduce drug prices through negotiations. Such savings will be needed to pay for expected increased usage, expansion of the primary care workforce, improving physician reimbursement over inadequate Medicaid and Medicare levels, and handling, at some point, specialty. And, of course, it means that insurance companies will still be around to mess with the process.

Without the savings made possible by a complete single-payer program, federal or state, that ends private insurance, the "incremental" approach will reach a quick dead end.

Expand full comment
26 more comments...

No posts