Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The counterargument is simple - it works in other countries.

Other countries have healthcare systems that don't generate medical bankruptcies, and don't put a slaver's chain around the necks of employees who risk financial destruction if they have to give up an employer-funded plan.

You're essentially arguing that 500k medical bankruptcies every single year, out of a population of 340 million, is a small price to pay for an imaginary financial benefit that you're convinced exists, for some loosely defined demographic, but which you've failed to quantify.

This is, very specifically, the problem that destroys your argument.

Some people in the US are better off until they aren't.

One serious medical crisis - like an extended bout with cancer - is enough to wipe out the benefits, and leave people who used to be prosperous out on the streets.

Literally. Not as an exaggeration, not as rhetoric, but as a cold, hard reality that affects half a million people every year.



You're responding persuasively to somebody's argument, but it isn't mine. I'm talking about the large cohort of American voters who would be worse off under a single-payer system.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: