For those in favor of 'single payer health care', why use such confusing language?

I'd bet many people (myself included) don't even understand fully what "single payer' means.

If that's government-funded health care, why not argue for that instead?

if they were in favor of "single payer health care" and neither, both well educated, had a clue what it meant.

I just barely graduated from HS and I know what single payer means.

Having a degree doesn't mean you're well educated and not having one doesn't mean you aren't well educated.

I think what you meant to say is the two people you spoke to had college degrees, a different thing entirely than being "well educated".

We wait, breathlessly, for your explanation of what 'single payer' means.

As opposed to multiple insurance companies competing for an ever shrinking pool of healthy people who will not utilize their insurance to any great extent.

Canada and the UK both have single payer.

But fighting upstream against the cacophony of disinformation and misinformation from the M$M is a tremendous slog.

The health insurance industry is going to throw everything they have at 'single payer'. If dumb people don't know what 'single payer' is, don't expect them to support it when the health insurance industry talks their talk rather than talking down to them.

Test that on people you know and let us know how they respond.

Single Payer is confusing, Universal Health Care is also good.

persuading the public (that government health care is better than the current system) more difficult for ourselves? Single payer may (or may not) be more accurate, but since basically everyone understands what Medicare is, Medicare For All is a great way to communicate what your aim is and basically how you want to get there.

although I use "non-profit" when patients ask about my waiting room propaganda, and those who actually have insurance, and those who have none, and those with Medicare/Medicaid (in other words, all of them) understand it just fine. A majority of people want this and yet we may get sold out. If so I predict a major turn-over in the next elections.

I believe single-issue candidates will become numerous again, for instance. "Elect me and I will serve only one term with health-care for all my only major reason for running."

Not to stray but Robinson's "Mars" series addresses a lot of this and a good quote, from discussion of a Mars-wide constitution, is "If you can't get basic housing the right to vote is the real joke".

"Medicare For All" is not only a concept everyone understands, but the American people already support it by 2 to 1!!!!!


So why are Democratic Senators in bed with the healthcare-corporate mafia?

And how can we afford to provide all of those E.T.'s with universal health care?

:) :)

and his species, if included, would become the providers, which would drop costs tremendously. Dintcha see how he healed things in that old documentary?

The term "Universal Health Care" could be used to describe many different possible systems, including those that keep private insurers. It's the proper term if you're including private insurers in the discussion, but not if you're only talking about single payer.

and covers the bills. In single-payer healthcare, your taxes, my taxes go into a pool to pay for healthcare for everyone. The government goes to the providers and agrees upon a price they will pay--negotiating for all of us for services, hospitalization, pharmacy, etc.--and then writes the check with our money. This cuts out the parasitical healthcare middleman that does NOTHING except skim money off of the top, AND attempts to limit actual healthcare as much as possible.

its essence better than 'single payer', so that at the mere mention of it, most people basically understand what you are talking about.

People who have spent time thinking about the issue understand what it means. But the large majority of Americans probably don't.

that the government would be providing health care, as opposed to simply paying for it.

That said, you may have a point but I'm not sure if "government funded health care" is a better term. I think something short and to the point may be better.

Others have suggested "Medicare for all". The problem with that is it's pushing one very specific way of providing single payer - put everyone under medicare - that limits the discussion.

How about "National Health Insurance"?

We don't want or need insurance, we need Medicare for All and extending Medicare to everyone is a very good way of paying for peoples health care.

Single-payer is funded by our taxes. The government acts as administrator and payout agent. They also negotiate with providers for the best price for services and products. Then they write the check. There is no insurance industry involvement. This is why the for-profit healthcare companies--insurance companies, big pharma, for-profit hospitals--are fighting single-payer tooth and nail.

But you may be correct that "National Health Insurance" isn't the best term.

However, "Medicare for All" is the proper term only if you're talking about using the current Medicare system to cover everyone.

Extending Medicare to cover everyone would probably be a great solution, but the discussion in this thread doesn't appear to me to be about the proper way to provide "Single Payer". The discussion is about a better term for what we're now calling "Single Payer". "Medicare for All" is simply one possible form of "Single Payer" so it really doesn't describe the concept properly.

as it leads people to think that insurance companies will be eliminated from the process which is not true. Medicare and Medicaid agencies contract with many insurance carriers to administer payments to those covered under the program. Universal Health Care is a more appropriate although in most cases these third party vendors are paid a capitated rate to provide the coverage. No one however refers to Medicaid or Medicare and single payer vehicles although both have a single funder, the government.

and it's working.

does not sound like Government Run.

You know--how Luntz formulates words and phrases for the GOP.
(Use Climate Change--do not say global warming)

I do think 'single payer' terminology needs to go, but it is probably too late to change things. I heard Ed Shultz explain it in simple terms... Single payer means you pay your taxes, the Government pays for health care.

Whenever there is a discussion I like to insert Not For Profit as much as possible. I think when you explain Insurance free health care, people understand it right away. Take out the middle man, you save enough to cover everyone. The whole idea is so logical, even a fundie can understand it.

It's too late to change the name. But NOT FOR PROFIT is more fitting.

That it's quite easy to make your business show a profit or not depending on how you work the books.

Not for profit doesn't necessarily mean an end to bloated executive pay and ridiculous overhead for companies.

FAQ on single-payer healthcare.