CA-GOV: Tom Steyer (D): 'We need single-payer health care'

[RandySF]

Billionaire and California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer (D) on Tuesday said the United States needs a single-payer health care system.

“Bernie Sanders was right. We need single-payer health care,” Steyer said in a video shared on social media. “In 2019, I didn’t think we needed single-payer health care.”

Steyer said he thought the U.S. could “bend the curve of health care inflation by using more inflation technology, more private sector expertise that these smarty-pants from the business world would bring down the cost.” He added that the U.S. needs a system that will cut out the expenses and “profit for middlemen supplying health care.”

The California Democrat joined a crowded field for the governorship last month, four years after he said he had “no plans” to run for public office again. Other Democratic candidates include former Rep. Katie Porter (Calif.), Rep. Eric Swalwell (Calif.), former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.




https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5668579-tom-steyer-single-payer-health/

[raccoon]

1. We needed it decades ago.

[debsy]

2. It seems a bit suspicious to me...

…that he comes out with this as he launches his campaign for governor. Like the previous poster stated, we needed it decades ago.

Big money always prevails in the gold old USA.

[Conjuay]

3. "Billionaire is the first disqualifier.

He's got too much power already.

[dsc]

10. FDR was the equivalent of a billionaire and Johnson was by no means a pauper

and both of them did pretty decently by the common person.

[MLWR]

4. "We need single-payer healthcare."

Many of us have known that for literally decades.

[IronLionZion]

5. Is he proposing it at the state level?

California and Vermont have passed legislation for it at the state level. So maybe he could get it implemented as governor of a liberal state.

[paleotn]

8. Unfortunately, we're weren't big enough to make it work.

Vermont is kind of a worst case scenario for single payer. Tiny, aging population that's about the size of the Augusta GA / SC or Syracuse NY MSAs. Our neighbors, NH and Maine, are bigger, but in the same demographic boat. But we could do it regionally and that's the way to go in my mind. New England plus NY and NJ could make it work. CA can do it all on their own, and would be even stronger with WA, OR and CO.

But then we've got the problem of "balkanizing" US healthcare and the known and unknown impacts of that. Wouldn't be easy, but then again, who said anything that's worthwhile had to be easy. Problems and all it's a hell of a lot better fiscally and from a healthcare outcomes perspective than the ginormous mess we have now. Lets do it!

[dsc]

11. I can't fathom how CO could join with those other states

Denver is over a thousand miles from any sizable city in CA or Oregon.

[paleotn]

12. This isn't the 19th century.

[Bobstandard]

6. Snake oil

Billionaire with no experience in government making extravagant promises. Where have I seen this one before? It seems to me, given his sudden major advertising presence on tv and social media, he’s trying to buy his way to the top. I’m not impressed. I’m very wary.

[paleotn]

9. My first thought as well.

Set up a plan to give away your wealth to better society and then, maybe we'll talk. Otherwise it's just consolidating more power in the hands of a tiny group with too much power as it is.

[Midnight Writer]

7. The "smarty-pants from the business world" are not interested in bringing down the cost.

They are interested in taking as much money as possible from patients and putting that money into their own pockets.

Businesses that are "too big to fail" do not care about customer service. They are interested in building monopolies where the customer has no choice but to give them money. Providing exemplary service is not profitable enough for them.

Big business is terrible at providing services. The difference between the value of a good or service and what you end up paying for it is called "profit". Corporations care about nothing but profit to its shareholders.

Government is much better at providing services. Overhead is low, there is no profit motive, and government can care for all people, regardless of their financial status.