[lbo-talk] I'll be voting in TX Dem primary - who should I vote for?

[Max B. Sawicky]

Voyou wrote:
I more or less agree with you on the analysis of the rhetorical
differences between the plans, but I come to the opposite conclusion.
Coercion is good! The one good thing about mandatory insurance is that
it at least raises the vague possibility of the government actually
intervening coercively to ensure health care for all. Single-payer,
after all, basically means coercing everyone to buy the government's
health insurance. Obama's opposition to mandates (because he's all about
choice, not coercion), is an example of how he is positioning himself to
Hillary Clinton's right.

and

  > Why would single-payer involve people losing their current insurance? As
> far as I know, that was a peculiarity of Canada's system; it's not true
> of the British NHS, or in France or, as far as I know, the rest of
> Western Europe. The important thing is to force everyone to buy into the
> government-provided health care system; allowing people to buy private
> insurance as well doesn't conflict with that.

The coercion part is on the individual's payment side.  Nothing forces 
the Gov to
give you great service.  If the plan is good, you shouldn't need coercion.

And:  sure you could always pay twice for insurance, once through taxes and
again for a separate private plan.  This is not likely to be more 
appealing than
being obliged to enroll in the Gov plan, unless you've got lots of dough.

The main drawback of a no-mandate plan is the free-rider problem -- people
waiting until they get sick before participating in the program.  But 
there are
ways to deal with this short of mandates.