I want, for now at least, to avoid the single payer vs. building blocks (mandates and little public option, etc.) debate per se. Let us go back to first principles and determine what we want out of a system? I would suggest that we can evaluate the success of health reform proposals by asking what it will, or will not, accomplish:
Of the plans they chose to review, the only plan that both covers everybody and actually controls total costs is the plan that most closely adopts features of single-payer, which is the latest proposal from Pete Stark who is chair of the Health Subcommittee in Ways & Means.
The more publicized proposals – Obama, Baucus, Wyden, the "moderate" consensus plan now known as Building Blocks – are all objectively worse.
In addition, this from an organization that does NOT support single payer!
It will also provide a follow-up my earlier diary on this report, why the Commonwealth Fund did not include the Conyers bill HR-676 which is a single payer proposal, which Stark's is not, among their many reviews.
Follow me for more details...