Comments by "Alan Friesen" (@alanfriesen9837) on "NBC News"
channel.
-
I don't know about the number "160 million"; I doubt that there are that many people who truly "love" their plan. However, the concerns regarding the more ambitious plans probably fall into a few categories.
Firstly, unions. Union membership and power has been on the decline for forty years now and taking away the ability for unions to negotiate a medical benefits package for its members seriously undermines their justification for existence. Now while this is a cynical and self-serving point of view vis-a-vis union leadership, it shouldn't necessarily be dismissed out of hand. Workers suffer with the emasculation of organized labor and policies that further undercut unions will hurt all workers whether or not they are organized.
Secondly, some workers. What a union can negotiate for its members varies from union to union and from company to company. Some workers have very good plans that allow them to go to the doctor that they're comfortable with and that covers everything they need with little to no employee contribution. While sweetheart deals like these are increasingly rare, they do still exist and workers that have these plans are naturally going to be reluctant to support anything that might jeopardize them.
Thirdly, clueless people. Some people have bare minimum plans that don't cost them much. These plans prove catastrophically insufficient when a medical emergency appears, but these folks have never had to test their plans because they've been healthy enough to avoid any medical service.
And lastly, rich people. Some people are wealthy enough to self insure and the additional costs to them of taxation outweighs what they are likely to pay for medical needs.
There are also a lot of people who probably don't really love their healthcare but who are afraid of the risk of trying to enact a single-payer comprehensive health program and falling short, thereby endangering what currently exists. These people fear losing what they have by overreaching, and because of this they would prefer a more incremental approach.
Personally I think that a comprehensive single payer approach would be the best overall healthcare option for our country. I think it would benefit most people. I also think it would benefit the better corporations who would no longer have as much of a legacy cost as they try to compete with firms who don't take care of their workers. I am concerned about the damage it would do to unions, but at this point most unions aren't able to get their workers good medical benefits anyway. It would be a sad irony if the success of a single-payer health plan turned out to be the death knell of American organized labor.
2