I listened and I heard nothing about government takeover of healthcare, with the exception of reimbursement to hospitals who care for the poor. Which is how we used to handle healthcare for the poor (public hospitals supported by the taxpayer).
No... By and large, hospitals were owned by religious institutions, which have an inbuilt prerequisite for charity. When the gov decided to split off profit making hospitals, making them distinct from the overall non-profit status of a religious institution, and thereby susceptible to taxation, That is when religious organizations began divesting themselves of their healthcare properties (late 80's IIRC).
Business bought them up, and lessened charity to conform with a business model, which increased the necessity for government welfare. Hence the mess we are in today.
County-run facilities were always there to pick up the slack, as well as state run or college run facilities, but the burden was mainly carried by churches.
The same with colleges (actually, schools generally).
The same with child care.
Return these things back under the dominion of churches, allowing them to 'profit' in their non-profit, only encourages more of the same... More facilities, more charity, more organized help for the downtrodden... In real effect, taking the burden off the taxpayer.
I watched the interview and yes he did say he was for universal coverage but I don’t think he said single payer (distinction without a difference?) Anyhow he then went on to start describing what sounded like introducing more market forces but Scott Pelly didn’t query him further. I could be wrong but I remember as I watched that exchange going uh-oh and then going oh he’s talking about buying insurance across state lines thing again. I think we need more information.
Don’t worry I’m sure he’ll tell us eventually.
Right now he is on a listening tour. He talks we listen
About the usual time for an accurate reply
22 in your case
Salute!
What you describe isn't perfect by any means, but it's a vast improvement over a system where the poor crowd our emergency rooms and get treatment (for non-emergencies) that they never can or intend to pay for. All of the cost gets passed on to patients who can and do pay. Effectively, this means that we already have subsidized healthcare for the poor by default, and it probably costs more than the alternative of subsidizing public hospitals directly with tax dollars.