An editorial in the New York Times, The High Cost of Health Care, wails and moans about how there's no solution to the health care problem while the same editorial contains facts that show the obvious solution. The editorial fails to recognize that the editorial, itself, contains the solution.
From the editorial:
"Health care costs are far higher in the United States than in any other advanced nation, whether measured in total dollars spent, as a percentage of the economy, or on a per capita basis."
The US spends more money, total, and as a portion of the economy and per person than ANY OTHER ADVANCED NATION.
"And our fragmented array of insurers and providers eats up a lot of money in administrative costs, marketing expenses and profits that do not afflict government-run systems abroad."
In other words, the insurance companies add a lot of cost that provide no medical care that are not found in single-payer systems. This cost DOES NOT AFFLICT GOVERNMENT-RUN SYSTEMS ABROAD.
The editorial says about single-payer systems, "Such a system would let the government offset the price-setting strength of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, eliminate much of the waste due to a multiplicity of private insurance plans, and greatly cut administrative costs."
That paragraph is the very best evidence there could be for the single-payer system.
Inexplicably, all of the evidence the editorial presents that single-payer systems are the solution to the cost problem are dismissed as not the solution to the cost problem because, "the approach has limited political support."
After presenting absolute proof that the single-payer system is the best health care system in the world, the editorial says that, for one reason only, its not the solution, because there are 534 politicians and one old grouch, Ron Paul, who are against it. That's the only reason the editorial gives for being against single-payer.
About Ron Paul, he's against all forms of public assistance. He's for eliminating government paid programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, while living on government paid funds and is covered by those very same programs, should he need them. He's a medical doctor who has benefited from practicing in the current exorbitantly expensive health care system that he would like to perpetuate. A search of his websites does not show that he refuses to take his $165,200 government salary, which would be in keeping with his ideology that the government shouldn't pay anyone for doing nothing. You'd think that he would be proud of not taking money from the government, and we'd hear about it. But, I haven't found any evidence of it. It may be that, unbeknownst to us, he refuses all forms of money from the government and out of modesty, refrains from bragging about it.
The editorial doesn't point that those 535 politicians oppose government paid health care for us because they have it for themselves and don't want us to have it, too. The other reason is that its easier for the lobbyists for the health care industry, the insurance industry and the drug companies to pay for the support of the current system by 535 people than it is to pay for the support by the 65%, about 195 million people, who are instead in support of the single-payer system.
The editorial tacitly admits that the lack of political support for single-payer is actually only the 535 people being paid to be against it versus the 195 million people who are not being paid to be against it, but are for it, without being paid anything.
Apply qui bono, who benefits, to the current system. The health care, insurance and drug industries and the 535 people.
Who doesn't benefit? We, of the 195 million.