Hippocrates asserts that single payor system has government as payor and as owner of infrastructure. That is not true. A single payor system can combined all existing government funded health treatment funding streams like Ryan White Dollars, Maternal and Child Health Funding, SAMSA funding and others. It can then tax all citizens according to a many reasonable approaches and thus capitalize (with relatively low tax burden) one single payment stream. Efficiencies of this model include the single payor power to negotiate price, the spreading of risk across a giant pool instead of fractured risk pools inherent in private insurance models. The basic coverage of the single payor would be as rich as any top notch blue cross plan we now have. Supplemental insurance can be private and be added by those of wealth as they choose.

Hippocrates asserts that a single payor system must resort to rationing and points to the apocryphal stories of those citizens of the Canada and UK models who must wait for elective surgery.  (Please take in the meaning of elective in elective surgery)  This is a misleading argument as all health care systems are rationing systems. Some are more rational in their rationing. Clearly the US rationing system, which has 44 million uninsured, is one rationing method. But I doubt one would argue that it is rational. Furthermore the rationing effect of longer waits for elective surgery in the UK or Canada model can be overcome, when their citizens purchase supplemental insurance. No one is saying that wealth does not have influence not receive preference in these systems. The US system currently has no rational approach nor will market force cure it. No market system will remove the reality that those who are wealthier may be advantaged over those with less. However, a single payor system would ensure all necessary health care is equitably distributed. Indeed distributive justice is at the core of all of these discussions.

Finally Hippocrates asserted that there was only anecdotal evidence for the success of a single payor system, that facts on these models’ success are not available. How is it that he disregards the objective metrics for both the per capital cost difference and the outcome measurement differences of all the industrialized nations various single payor systems e.g. France, Germany, Australia, UK, Canada, Japan...

when you start your defence of the single payor plan, i would suggest that you get all of your FACTS straight..your 44 million uninsured number has been revised yet again, just so that you know...we need to step back (more time) and have a serious debate (not rush rush rush) over how to best solve the Health Care issues..screw and do it, HIGHER TAXES FOR EVERYONE isn't the solution.