Let me try one other way of clarifying this.
Many poor people in the USA receive food & housing assistance. Lets look at food assistance.
Food assistance is not single payer. There are federal and state assistance, and it varies by state. The assistance does come from state & local taxes, so it is wealth redistribution. AFAIK, most of such food assistance is in fact non-profit. So this is the combination of multi-payer, non-profit using tax wealth redistribution.
It should be further noted that food production as well as most of food distribution is not much affected by the assistance programs. I say not much, because food stamps are typically used like money at normal food sales points. There is some effect, because some Bureaucrat determines what can and what cannot be purchased with food stamps. This actually does affect upstream food production somewhat, how much I don't know. I do know that farmers like getting on the approved school lunch list, and that can impact crop prices a little.
Now, please note that food is MUCH move vital than health care. Most our monkey cousins live their lives with zero medical care, but nobody lasts long without food. So
1) Food is more vital than health care
2) Some Americans can't obtain adequate food on their own.
Therefore the government should implement a single payer, non-profit system to pay for all food used in the USA, to insure the best system at the low cost.
My view of your arguments on health care are similar to my views of the above conclusion: they are incorrect. Don't come back arguing that health care is different because of risk, whereas food consumption is known. If you try that, it just means you don't understand that first and foremost, insurance specifically handles that, it converts the infrequent into known budgeted amounts. Fundamentally, insurance is for Accountants. Accountants cannot deal with the unknown and risk. Everything must be squared up on the budget and balance sheets. Insurance does this with great mathematical precision. Accountants happily pay some premium for this tidying up. They don't care in the least that those performing this accounting house cleaning make a little profit on the side, although nobody would complain if somehow some kind soul did it for free. That is not the issue. What I see you doing is spending all your time arguing that the organization that converts infrequent and unexpected expenses into bounded certainty, should for some unknown reasons provide this service for free, as though it is inexplicably different from other commercial services. Why? |
