> Rather it should be sold as an exception to the rule.
I've said this before: Society has already made it's choice. Society doesn't want people dying in the streets. Once you've made that decision, universal healthcare in some form or another just flows from that. The US has a form of it right now, it's just extremely perverse and expensive.
Water, food, clothing, and shelter are all more important to people not dying in the streets than health care, and we don't have government single-payer versions of any of those.
So I agree with the parent: it's not enough to just say that health care is important, therefore it should be single payer. There are too many counter examples for such a simple argument to pass muster. Discussions of health care policy need to start with a detailed and honest accouting of the health care market specifically.
> Water, food, clothing, and shelter are all more important to people not dying in the streets than health care
And nearly all governments provide countless services from welfare, public housing, shelters, the foster care system, food stamps, etc for that as well.
Society has already made the decision about socialized healthcare; the only real question is how to implement it. The current implementation where you have socialized healthcare but deny it's existence is the worst possible and least efficient system.
I've said this before: Society has already made it's choice. Society doesn't want people dying in the streets. Once you've made that decision, universal healthcare in some form or another just flows from that. The US has a form of it right now, it's just extremely perverse and expensive.