As follow-up to the post below, I want to play around with the idea that the medical industrial-complex will attack any serious health reform with total ferocity, and so would-be reformers should simply try and legislate them out of existence, knowing that that's the path of maximal efficiency. Look at the Clinton push, these folks say. They tried to compromise and were torn apart for it. Single-payer style solutions, by contrast, are simpler, and will be easier to sell.
It doesn't necessarily follow that since liberals have lost when they've sought compromise, they'll win with the opposite stance. It could be that a proposal closer to single-payer would've been even more disastrous. Indeed, what always strikes me about this argument is that the attitudes of the American people towards massive government regulation are largely ignored. Single-payer isn't simply blocked by industry despite overwhelming public support. It doesn't garner much support. As Chris reminds us in comments:
On the idea that single-payer will sell because it's simple to explain, Oregon had a single-payer health care bill, Measure 23, on the public ballot in 2002. It failed by 21.5% to 78.5%. California had a single-payer bill, Proposition 186, on the public ballot in 1994. It failed by 27% to 73%. If this is such a great idea that everyone supports and is so easy to sell, how come it's failed among the public by 50 points in two Blue states?
And here's a November 2006 poll on the question:
