| > It would lower costs That is consistently the claim, but unless it would also lower outcomes, what thing is it doing to cause that which couldn't be done independently of single payer? It's easy to lower "costs" using price controls, but then you have all the usual problems of price controls. Shortages, rationing, quality reductions necessary to meet the price target, etc. Keep in mind that for people with insurance, the US system has better overall outcomes than most socialized systems. > and it would also put them on an equal playing field with the other domestic manufacturers, rather than having to compete with other companies who have lower costs due to not having such expensive union health care plans. That doesn't really matter unless they're competing with those companies, but most of the other auto companies have the same issues with the UAW and US workers, and those companies have the same option to build plants outside of the US as their competitors. > As for needing a solution sooner... it’s not like this is going to be the end of it. Health care costs were a major point of contention in 2008 as well. I’m pretty sure they were a major problem for GM well before that. That's the point. 2008 wasn't even the beginning of it, this has been an issue since at least the Clinton administration. GM would likely be bankrupt (again) before Congress does anything meaningful here. |