By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Tom Steyer, a California gubernatorial candidate, recently announced his support for a single-payer health care system, reversing his prior stance. Steyer previously believed the US could control healthcare costs through technological innovation and private sector involvement, but now recognizes the need to eliminate the profits of intermediaries. Steyer, who ran in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary advocating for a “Right to Health” plan, now aligns with the views of Bernie Sanders. Polling indicates Steyer currently has limited support within the California electorate.
Read the original article here
Tom Steyer: ‘We need single-payer health care’
It’s pretty clear, judging from the conversation around the topic, that Tom Steyer advocating for single-payer health care is a significant development. It seems like the overwhelming sentiment is that the current American healthcare system is, to put it mildly, broken. People are facing financial ruin due to medical bills, tied to their employers for coverage, and struggling with a system that prioritizes profits over patient well-being. It’s a system where “wealth care” is more accurate than “health care”.
The argument for single-payer hinges on a few key points. Firstly, the current system allows private insurance companies to make exorbitant profits, often at the expense of patient care. There is an industry of denial, where the companies make money by refusing to deliver the services that have been paid for, with denial of care sometimes leading to death. These companies are making money from the system while people are going bankrupt. The high costs are compounded by the complexity and lack of transparency in pricing, making it difficult for people to understand what they are paying for.
Secondly, the existing system is seen as inefficient. The administrative costs associated with multiple insurance providers, negotiating prices, and dealing with denials of care are enormous. These resources could be better used on actual healthcare, rather than administrative overhead. Single-payer systems, in theory, streamline these processes, reducing costs and freeing up resources for patient care.
The call for single-payer isn’t just about cost. It’s also about fairness and equity. Many people believe healthcare is a basic human right. This is especially true given the number of people who face financial hardship or have gone bankrupt because of their healthcare needs. There’s a widespread feeling that something that is required and mandated should not be profit-driven.
The opposition to single-payer, on the other hand, seems to come from those who benefit from the current system. Private insurance companies, who profit from the status quo, are likely to fight any reform that threatens their bottom line. Politicians who receive donations from these companies are, predictably, less likely to support single-payer.
There are many counter arguments that people propose as alternatives. But the consensus seems to be that those options won’t solve the core problems. For example, a “public option” is seen by some as insufficient because many people might not pay premiums. Expanded Medicaid is a potential short-term solution, but not a universal one.
The path forward for single-payer is not easy. It would require political will and overcoming resistance from powerful interests. It will need the cooperation and support of those in power. However, given the current state of healthcare in America, and the growing consensus that the system is broken, the push for single-payer appears to be gaining momentum. The only way it will work is if the people demand it. Single-payer could potentially bring about a healthier and happier America.
Many of these viewpoints suggest that this is long overdue. A change is necessary, and single-payer is a viable solution. The time for action is now.