@K: Nope. I offered two incisive analyses by two well-respected analysts, and they stand unchallenged but for a vague assertion that they “misrepresent” the facts in some unspecified way. The argument about the economic benefits of widely available care has nothing to do with whether a government monopoly is necessary or preferable to achieve that end. The assertion that a government monopoly is efficient contradicts historical experience and the laws of economics. The issue of innovation is not addressed: What happens if/when American consumers stop subsidizing medical progress for the whole planet? Then there is outright denial, as described in the articles, of the dreadful consequences of giving politicians power over who lives, who dies and when, and who suffers.

I make no bones about cherishing the values that have made the American republic one of mankind’s noblest achievements. That ain’t ideology, friend, it’s history.

@H: It happens that I do know the difference between socialism and communism: Socialism is communism for kids (note that they share a category on Amazon):

https://www.amazon.com/Communism-Kids-Press-Bini-Adamczak/dp/0262533359/ref=sr_1_1

Re the burden of ideology, on the one hand we have Heather talking about the real practicalities of single payer systems that exist in almost every Western country, along with why the great majority of people strongly support such systems regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, not to mention that the idea has a history not just on the left, but on the right as a means of increasing economic growth. On the other hand, we have you, seemingly in a corner with your hands over your ears, crying that it just can’t be true. So you win the dogma derby hands down, which I suppose helps explain how you can think that politics could be unimportant to people severely disadvantaged by the current corrupt system.

I’m glad to hear you admit that the Reagan doctrine of compassionate conservatism is a myth. I do not see how single-payer impedes medical breakthroughs. I understand that putting the word “socialized” in front of something denotes it as evil in your social circle, but that doesn’t work with those of us who understand how single-payer actually works and who know the difference between socialism and communism.

@H: There is no compassionate ideology. Compassion is a personal virtue. People are compassionate, not isms or regimes. As the two cited articles make plain, socialized medicine is at least as ruthless as any other scheme, with added cruelty of impeding the very medical breakthroughs that give hope to many sufferers.

@K: Interesting. So, if there’s no difference between the politically advantaged and the economically advantaged, it makes you wonder what some people think will be accomplished by making politics the end-all and be-all.

And do we really want to get into which viewpoint is more burdened by ideology?

Yep. So much for compassionate conservatism.

Partisan, yes, ideological even more so. One might even say delusional, like believing the “politically advantaged” and “economically advantaged” are different groups of people.

There are more resources available to allocate to helping people in a single-payer system. It is better for everybody if more people get good healthcare. It is better for managers if their staff are healthy. They stay healthier if they are looked after well from conception, and they have less days off work due to illness, and can work better too. Therefore they are more productive. A healthier workforce is also happier and more secure. It also means employers have more scope on how they reward good employees because they don’t have to factor in the cost of health, which often means they can’t afford to offer higher wages or some other incentive.

There are so many reasons why it’s actually economically better to have a single-payer system it’s clear that the GOP are only opposing it for partisan reasons. It was in fact originally a right-wing idea.

As the article discusses, it feels good to get all sanctimonious, but it’s delusional. Resources are going to get allocated one way or the other. Favoring the politically advantaged is no better (or different) than favoring the economically advantaged.