> But those systems tend to look like a "single-payer donkey with a free-market tail stuck on."
I wouldn't use either of the terms "single-payer" or "free-market" in describing systems in which there are multiple private sector health insurers (payers), and it is mandatory for individuals to purchase a plan from one, with highly regulated plan provisions and operations.
They don't much look like "single-payer" anything, and don't very much look like any "free-market" bit has been stuck on (there is a market component, but its not free.)
> If that sounds exactly like the ACA, you're correct
The ACA is similar in outline, but the differences aren't particularly subtle (the ACA's isn't universal; the poor, elderly, and disabled -- rather than being subject to the mandate and operating through the same market, potentially with a public subsidy, instead are directed to one [in some cases, both] of two completely separate public insurance systems, etc., etc., etc.)
I wouldn't use either of the terms "single-payer" or "free-market" in describing systems in which there are multiple private sector health insurers (payers), and it is mandatory for individuals to purchase a plan from one, with highly regulated plan provisions and operations.
They don't much look like "single-payer" anything, and don't very much look like any "free-market" bit has been stuck on (there is a market component, but its not free.)
> If that sounds exactly like the ACA, you're correct
The ACA is similar in outline, but the differences aren't particularly subtle (the ACA's isn't universal; the poor, elderly, and disabled -- rather than being subject to the mandate and operating through the same market, potentially with a public subsidy, instead are directed to one [in some cases, both] of two completely separate public insurance systems, etc., etc., etc.)