Words have meaning and I am not sure what is implied by "single payer." While we ideologically are seeking a public single payer we already have one in Medicare. Recent studies have shown that our Medicare does poorly on care and cost/capita than other westernized countries who are classically single payer, have better population health, and utilize more of the private market in their models. So we think the Feds. should do it, while e.g. Canada, Germany, Switz, etc are moving more to the private market. All very interesting. Health and healthcare costs are driven not by our medical delivery system but principally by our culture--e.g., behaviors. Our obesity binge can never be dealth with adequately from a healer standpoint--we as Americans must change our values and culture to ultimately control our medical illness expenditures. At most, treatment of the ill, only contributes to 20% of the health of the population by all academic medical macroeconomists.

Let's face it, until we have single payer the vast majority of us will stay in the medical bankruptcy pool. California should join Vermont and vote for a single payer system. When Medicare became law the poverty rate among the elderly dropped from 26% to 9%.
Vermont expects to save $500 Million a year by going to single payer health care. Last I looked, Massachusetts would save over $2 Billion a year. It'd be interesting to know how much California could save every year.

This article is yet another example of why we need the single payer option for healthcare. How can anyone feel secure in their retirement if we have to factor an additional $230K in savings/investments?
Delaying retirement or not retiring at all are the sad realities of the baby boomers who have been adversely impacted by this economy.

http://www.networkmarketingonlinesuccess.com