The problem is not single payer health care, it's that the single payer that does exist (both medicare and medicaid are single payer) has decided not to increase the amount of money available, not even inflation adjustments, for 15 years.

How good would you feel about your job, even if well-paid initially, after 15 years of no raise. Not even inflation or cost-of-living adjustments.

And would you sell if someone came and offered you money for your customers, knowing they'd get screwed sooner or later?

> it's that the single payer that does exist (both medicare and medicaid are single payer) has decided not to increase the amount of money available

Excuse my ignorance as a non-American, but I don't understand how Medicare and Medicaid can be called "single-payer", even if we bunch both of them together for the sake of the argument. Are certain healthcare providers restricted so as to only accept Medicare and/or Medicaid patients, and cannot by law accept those who are privately insured or would like to pay out of pocket? That is the only context in which I can imagine Medicare/Medicaid being called "single payer".

Single-payer as in the government pays. We have Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans all covered by the government. If a provider wants to serve those markets (old, poor, vets) they have to accept the rates offered by the government.

> Single-payer as in the government pays.

Those aren't the same things.

The government paying for services in a private market is not single payer.

Single payer in the US simply means the patient doesn't front any money. The doctor/hospital/... just gets the money for medical services rendered directly from insurance (and insurance collects things like a deductible from the patient, not the doctor. Essentially, insurance guarantees payment to the medical provider and deals with all patient financial matters). Medicare and medicaid are single payer.

Things aren't called the same thing everywhere. For example, "single payer" is called "third payer" in Northwest Europe.

Expensive (e.g. expat) insurance tends to be single payer/third payer even though it is 100% private insurance. You just go to a doctor, they help, other than your insurance card, no questions asked.

> Single payer in the US simply means the patient doesn't front any money.

No, that's not what it means.

> The doctor/hospital/... just gets the money for medical services rendered directly from insurance (and insurance collects things like a deductible from the patient, not the doctor. Essentially, insurance guarantees payment to the medical provider and deals with all patient financial matters).

You seem to be describing medical insurance in general, not single payer health care.

> Medicare and medicaid are single payer.

No, they're not. "Medicare for All" would be single payer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare

Uh, that’s pretty much the definition of single-payer, at least as commonly used.

From Wikipedia: Single-payer healthcare is a type of universal healthcare in which the costs of essential healthcare for all residents are covered by a single public system (hence "single-payer").

The difference here being the US has a fractured system, with several government systems (but from the same government). Medicare for All would be try single payer.

I linked to that very Wikipedia article and said Medicare for All would be single payer in another comment half an hour before yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36751975