>I'm actually convinced that single payer healthcare doesn't exist because companies lobby against it.

I suspect big companies also lobby against allowing individuals to purchase health insurance with pre tax dollars if you are employed by a small company that does not offer health insurance.

Similar to why an employee can save $20.5k of pre tax earnings per year if they work for an employer that offers 401k benefits, and an employee that works for an employer that does not offer 401k benefits can save $6k of pre tax earnings, IF they earn less than $68k per year.

And I have never heard either a Democrat or "small government" Republican address this glaring piece of corruption.

The cherry on top is that the legislation Democrats' are trying to push through right now gets rid of the backdoor Roth which allows people to save $6k in a tax advantaged Roth IRA if they are not eligible for IRAs, claiming that this is a benefit for the rich. But even the Democrats do not seem to want to touch the $20.5k (employee) or $61k (employer + employee) 401k limit, which benefits even richer people working for richer companies.

Doctors' groups have consistently lobbied against it because they fear it will reduce their power and earning potential. That's the most influential lobby. The AMA killed Truman's national health plan and lobbied hard against Medicare.

Well, the Republicans in Congress do vote against single-payer healthcare. Probably because companies lobby against it. And while conservative families may want better healthcare, they're not going to get it as long as they vote for Republican politicians. Or moderate Democrats for that matter, because they're really not so different when it comes to corporate lobbying.

If you want actual representation, you first need to change the system.

There was a bunch of exit poll statistics that Fox News of all places ran around the time of the 2020 elections. One such stat was more than 60% of people supporting a single payer healthcare system. Couldn't believe they let that air on Fox News.

This is what happens when we have out-of-touch elite class running Congress.

For some reason both Republican and Democrat politicians seem more economically right-wing and more corporatist than either of their bases.

I wonder if that's a natural consequence of the giant part of the voter base that feels obligated to vote for one of the two parties for social/tribal reasons alone. Without these voters pressuring their parties to align more with them in economic terms too, the effect of corporate pressure may be felt more strongly by politicians, leading to a drift to corporatism.

Democrats did try for a "public option" or something like it in 2009, but they always barely have the Senate, and have 2 or 3 Democrat Senators that are closer to Republicans who force them to cut back on spending. I remember Lieberman from ACA times forcing quite a few changes to ACA, and the same exact thing is happening this year with Manchin/Sinema.

Although the bigger issues is probably distribution of resources within American society. Lots of people were pissed that even the compromise that was ACA caused their healthcare costs to rise, even though it objectively lead to many more Americans getting access to healthcare. The country might say they want everyone to have everything, but no one will sign up to pay.

Whereas before, say the top 50% of the population got access to healthcare because they worked for government or large enough private companies to afford it, now that the bottom 50% had access to healthcare via subsidies and laws ensuring no one could be excluded from health insurance, the costs rose for the top 50%, and I hear endless whining about it, ignoring the fact that the bottom 50% can actually get an annual physical now.