[Grombobulous]

Universal single-payer healthcare is one of the most pro-business and traditionally conservative with a lower case C thing you can imagine.

It’s pretty much a no-brainer cost reduction for everyone.

This doesn’t even mean you need to get rid of private insurance companies (see: Germany).

[ed312]

The cost reduction alone from everyone paying the same price (for the same service at the same facility of course) must be staggering. I agree - I don't see any need to ban any private insurance or providers and that's also aligned with a traditionally (lower case c) conservative free market view too.

[maerF0x0]

Single payer maybe, but single provider? Never.

[Grombobulous]

While I agree that there’s probably a benefit of diversifying providers in most situations, I would take single provider over “I can’t afford care at all.”

Also, single provider countries like the UK still have private healthcare. A LOT of private healthcare. This idea that single provider/single payer will make most people’s care worse and remove everyone’s options has felt to me a lot like industry propaganda.

[maerF0x0]

So long as there is a relatively open market, where companies who wish to compete can do so fairly (ie the gov't isn't making them play with a handicap), I'm open to a public fund for some forms of healthcare expenditures with a cap.

One of the challenges about talking about the subject is that it's often spoken in absolutes, instead of the spectrum and mosaic that healthcare is.

for example you could have a socialized subsidy to healthcare expenditure (like Canada does for Universities). You could have certain things be free for anyone, like maybe certain kinds of preventative care. You could have a periodic or lifetime cap for example maybe we say "We cap your lifetime care at 500K, sometimes life sucks and we're not going to bankrupt the country to try and save every last person"

But unfortunately nuance is very uncomfortable to discuss