vacation

I have recently returned from a short vacation to Las Vegas, Nevada. I will be adding some new posts to fill in some of the missing days while we were in Vegas. I didn't take a computer with me, so I could not easily make any posts while we were there. As expected, it was 100+ degrees every day we were out there. Sure, the humidity is lower, but sweat doesn't really give a shit. 

AI Rogue

An interesting counterpoint to the previous post called AI Utopia. This one is from a Baptist Seminarian John Alan Shope. I may be an atheist, but I still listen to a broad range of opinion. Sometimes, religious people have something interesting to say. 

The claim that AI will become sentient and kill off humanity may be a distraction from a more urgent existential problem. 

Is it possible that a global collective of billionaires addicted to money & power are creating a false narrative in order to take their control to the next level?

A conversation with AI itself explains how this might play out:

1. Regulatory Advantage

If the narrative is that AI is a dangerous, apocalyptic force that could "go rogue" and destroy humanity, the logical conclusion is that only a few highly trusted, heavily vetted entities (billionaire tech giants) should be allowed to build it.

(1) If advanced AI remains open-source (free and accessible to everyone), it decentralizes capability. A kid in their basement or a small community collective could have the same cognitive power as a massive corporation. This threatens the monopoly of the elite.

(2) By loudly warning governments about the "apocalypse," tech leaders successfully lobby for strict licensing laws. These laws require massive compliance budgets that only trillion-dollar companies can afford, effectively outlawing independent or open-source competitors under the guise of "public safety."

2. Shifting the Blame to “Rogue AI”

Framing the threat as a "rogue machine" absolves the creators and owners of the machine from full accountability. 

(1) If a predictive policing AI unfairly targets a minority community, or if an automated trading algorithm collapses a local economy, framing it as "the AI went rogue" narrative shifts the conversation from corporate greed and systemic exploitation to abstract computer science.

(2) In reality, the machine did exactly what its billionaire owners optimized it to do: maximize profit, extract data, and enforce social control. 

3. The "God-Builder" Complex 

If you are the one building the entity that could either destroy the world or save it, you automatically occupy the highest seat of power in human history - above presidents, prime ministers, and international courts. 

(1) By manufacturing a massive existential crisis and then offering themselves as the only ones capable of solving it, they bypass democratic accountability entirely. (November elections?)

(2) This Power Shift in political science is often described as the transition from capitalism to Techno-Feudalism. In this system, the billionaires aren't just wealthy citizens; they are "lords" who own the digital territory (the cloud, the algorithms, the data infrastructure)…that the rest of humanity must pay rent to use. 

Bottom line: The fear among billionaires tech giants may not be that a computer will wake up and kill us. Rather, it may be that a decentralized, equitable distribution of intelligence will wake humanity up…breaking the artificial scarcity that keeps the few in power over the many.

John Alan Shope

AI Utopia

Here's another guest column from a friend that I have published here before. "CL" presents an interesting outcome to the AI/robot future, while borrowing from science fiction and experiments on mice. 

AI Utopia

by C.L.

Elon Musk pontificates about how his Optimus robots and xAI superintelligence will bring limitless wealth and leisure to everyone. His thesis appears to be that his robots will produce such abundance that humanity will henceforth live in the lap of luxury.

Perhaps he imagines a future not unlike the antebellum South where a legion of slaves provided for the needs of their masters. Optimus robots will be the new slaves, of course. And it is fitting since the original Czech word robota means "forced labor" aka slave.

I wonder whether such a utopia is capable of sustaining a civilization. In the 1950s-1970s, John Calhoun designed a "rat utopia" (actually dozens of them) to see what would happen if a colony of rats was given everything that its members needed - food, water, shelter, etc. These experiments all ended with the eventual death of every colony member as a result of maladaptive behaviors - commonly the loss of interest in reproduction, foraging, etc. The rats died of disinterest in living, it seems.

You may remember the 2005 movie Serenity in which colonists on a distant planet called Miranda died after "The Company" added a chemical (Pax) to the atmosphere that suppressed all aggressive behavior in the population. The colonists lost their instinct to struggle and simply lay down and died.

Calhoun didn't argue that his rats lost interest in living but that they ran out of roles to fulfill. What happens to humanity when everything that needs doing is being done by robots? When there is no reason to make new music or art because AI produces both better than the masters of yore? When there are no more barriers to be broken or struggles to be overcome?

Nearing the end of each of his experiments, a subgroup of Calhoun's rats emerged that devoted themselves exclusively to eating, sleeping, and grooming. Calhoun called them "The Beautiful Ones." They didn't reproduce or fight or do anything but exist in an introverted, narcissistic state until they died.

Now, there's something to think about.

Scott Greenberg

Books will be written about Trump, his sycophantic scared minions and his devil spawn, and I will probably not read a one of them. I've had enough of the circus charlatan by living through it. I look forward to the day when we no longer will have to worry about what our president is up to. That day is coming.

Many of us have been trying to understand Donald Trump and what drives him for years. We analyze his mental health as if we’re experts and we look back on all he’s done throughout his life and marvel that he’s been able to get away with it all. I honestly believe he’s everything we think he is, from certifiably insane to diabolically evil with no socially redeeming qualities nor a soul. Endless books have been written about him, from those closest to him to casual observers, and all pretty much end up with same conclusion. He is simply everything we think he is with the only remaining question being how it all ends? I hope I live long enough to find out the answer but I hope it’s soon just in case.

Lately however I’ve been thinking more about his defenders and supporters than I have been about him. I keep asking myself why anyone still believes in him. He hasn’t made anyone’s life better unless you count the very wealthy. He hasn’t kept any of his promises nor has he has proven that he is even trying to. His “base” continues to pay a heavy price for their faith in him and the future hardly looks brighter today for them than it did before. So what is the attraction? I seriously can’t understand it.

I mean once we eliminate the racists, who are afraid of people of color stealing their white privilege, and the 1%ers, what drives these people? We can blame ignorance, and that certainly is part of it, but sometimes even stupid people realize they’ve been hoodwinked eventually. The problem is that not all of them are stupid, racist, or obscenely wealthy. I watched two examples today of politicians basically surrender their conscience to him and another do everything but give him a BJ on air.

Mike Johnson, or Eddie Haskell as I call him, was the latter, but Mike Lawler and Spencer Cox surprised me with their unconditional surrender. BTW if you don’t get the Eddie Haskell reference try to remember Leave It To Beaver. Anyway, back to Cox and Lawler. Cox is typically a centrist R with a book out about working across the aisle to find an off ramp for the hatred in our politics. When pressed about the felon’s $5,000 promise he shifted immediately to easing restrictions on building permits. A deflection that truly boggled my mind. And Lawler, who didn’t believe a word of what he was saying, sold his soul to secure the funding his tight congressional race needs so desperately. He knew that even a mild disagreement with Trump would mean he’d run out of money with only weeks to go before Election Day. It was hard to watch these two embarrass themselves so thoroughly, but follow the money and it becomes much clearer. Speaking of money the GOP has far more than does team blue and since they have nothing positive to offer their voters get ready for an onslaught of negative ads against their opponents. It’s going to be epic and not in a good way. The mudslinging has just begun but trust me we ain’t seen nothing yet. Hang on to your hats friends, ugly is about to get even uglier if you can believe that. Thank god for Law and Order reruns and DVRs.

Scott Greenberg

undeserving

This is a great message from a Norwegian, concerning "undeserving" people. Will the United States ever get to this kind of point, where we feel that no citizen is undeserving of the benefits of a modern civilization? Sometimes it feels like we are light-years away from that, but again, anything is possible. I'm not really sure why, but I am one of those "eternal optimists."

tipping points

This is a somewhat hopeful article, provided we stop fighting and stealing from each other. Of course, the biggest impediment to achieving a renewed Earth is one Donald J. Trump. Until he is removed from office, and until many of his sycophants are likewise removed, the United States stands no chance of joining the world community to work towards renewing the Earth. Oil companies need to be brought to heel also, obviously. However, it is possible. We just need to have the will, and the spine, to get it done. Does anyone want a barren, uninhabitable Earth?

Recovery becomes self-propelling: Five positive tipping points that can save the world

By Liam Gilliver

Published on 12/09/2026 - 7:05 GMT+2

“For too long a sense has prevailed that solutions to the climate and nature are out of reach. This new research explodes that myth once and for all.”

The world risks irreversible damage as our reliance on planet-heating fossil fuels pushes ecosystems towards catastrophic climate tipping points.

A recent report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that global temperature rise will exceed 1.5°C, likely within the next few years, overshooting the limit set out in the legally binding Paris climate agreement. 

This would accelerate much of the environmental degradation the natural world is already experiencing, from shrinking ice sheets to rising sea levels and “unprecedented dieback” of coral reefs and rainforests.

The UNEP says that there are “no good outcomes if we remain above 1.5°C” and that governments must focus on making the overshoot as small and short as possible.

However, landmark new research from The Earthshot Prize and the University of Exeter has revealed 51 solutions that can trigger “rapid and transformative change” to repair the planet over the next five years. Out of these 51 solutions, five priority clusters – or ‘Earthshots’ – were identified.

Following the hottest August on record – tied with July 2023 – and a strong El Niño developing across the Pacific, researchers say that the study provides a “new, unifying agenda for positive action”.

“To reverse damage to our ecosystems before it’s too late, we need to unlock positive tipping points where progress builds on itself, costs fall with scale and recovery becomes self-propelling,” says Professor Tim Lenton, chair in climate change and earth system science at the University of Exeter.

Clean energy as a ‘master cascade’

Renewable energy such as solar and wind has already crossed positive tipping points in many markets – and is essential to end reliance on fossil fuels.

Last year, solar and wind accounted for a record 30 per cent of EU electricity, overtaking fossil power for the first time on record. During this time, EU solar generation hit a record 369TWh, up 20 per cent from 2025.

By 2030, solar power alone is projected to reduce EU emissions by 154 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year. This is the equivalent of the total greenhouse gas emissions of the Netherlands in 2023.

“Because clean power unlocks electric mobility, heat pumps, clean industry and clean air simultaneously, this is the highest-leverage transition across all five Earthshots,” the report says.

“The binding constraints are now grid expansion, permitting reform and the clean energy investment gap in the Global South.”

Despite hosting 60 per cent of the world’s best solar resources, Africa receives less than two per cent of global clean energy investment. 

Some of the continent’s largest economies, such as South Africa, Morocco and Nigeria, are already accelerating plans to build more domestic solar manufacturing capacity to reduce dependence on Chinese imports that currently dominate the global market.

Morocco has doubled production to around one gigawatt a year. South Africa maintains a similar capacity, while Egypt has gigawatt-scale projects coming online.

“A few years ago, local solar manufacturing was barely on the agenda anywhere in Africa,” Benjamin Clarke, policy director at the Africa Solar Industry Association, tells news agency AP.

“It is now becoming a recognised pillar of industrial policy and green economic development.”

Clean cooking and clean household energy

Despite the clean energy boom, around 2.1 billion people still rely on solid fuels for cooking. 

This is the largest source of indoor air pollution and a major source of ‘black carbon’, commonly known as soot.

“Clean cooking is close to a tipping point in several markets as pay-as-you-go solar and clean cooking businesses scale across East and Southern Africa,” the report states.

“In Latin America and parts of Asia, the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) transition is substantially complete, bringing health benefits to millions.”

How marine protected areas are becoming ‘self-reinforcing’

Researchers highlight that well-designed and well-enforced ocean conservation has produced “visible recovery” of fish stocks and biodiversity within recent years.

“As communities have reaped the benefits of marine conservation, protection areas have expanded and progress accelerated,” the report states.

“In turn, food security for coastal populations and climate resilience has strengthened with examples including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia.”

Earlier this year, the highly anticipated High Seas Treaty came into force, marking a “historic milestone” for global ocean conservation. 

The High Seas is often used to describe all areas beyond national jurisdiction, including the seafloor and water column (the vertical section of water from the surface to the bottom). This equates to international waters that cover more than two-thirds of our ocean – almost 50 per cent of the planet’s surface area.

Once considered barren and desolate, the High Seas are now regarded by scientists as one of the largest reservoirs of biodiversity on Earth. They play an important role in regulating the climate, supporting “crucial” carbon and water cycles.

However, human activity poses a growing problem for the High Seas. The High Seas Alliance (HSA) warns that destructive fishing practices such as bottom trawling and illegal fishing are harming High Seas marine life, along with issues such as plastic and chemical pollution, seabed mining and ocean acidification from global warming.

The Treaty now means that nations will be empowered to establish a connected network of High Seas marine protected areas (MPAs) – which can be adopted by a vote when consensus cannot be reached. This helps prevent a single nation from blocking MPAs being established.

It also supports developing countries through capacity building and the transfer of marine technology so that they are better empowered to develop, implement, monitor and manage future High Seas MPAs.

The ‘gatekeepers’ for tropical deforestation

Multiple studies have identified that rising global demand for meat, particularly beef, as a key force behind the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

Research from the University of Manchester earlier this year, for example, found that up to 80 per cent of cleared forest land is converted into cattle pasture, while gaps in supply chain oversight allow deforestation to continue.

The ‘Positive Tipping Points’ report warns that concentrated global supply chains for beef, soy (which is often used to feed cattle), palm oil, timber, cocoa and coffee make a small number of buyers and financiers the “gatekeepers for tropical deforestation”.

However, legislation like the EU Deforestation Regulation, which “guarantees that the products EU citizens consume do not contribute to deforestation or forest degradation worldwide”, could make a significant difference – especially if it triggers a market-wide shift across other major importers such as China, the UK and the US.

How can positive tipping points be achieved?

Researchers stress that creating the right conditions for a solution area to tip is critical, outlining three prerequisites that are needed across all potential Earthshots. These are affordability, accessibility and attractiveness.

The report also states that the five Earthshots are “deeply interconnected” and often share the same conditions, infrastructure and risks within a single system.

For example, the boom in clean electricity could accelerate positive tipping points across all five Earthshots, while barriers such as a lack of investment in the Global South could stall progress in the regions that need it most.

“For too long a sense has prevailed that solutions to the climate and nature [crises] are out of reach. This new research explodes that myth once and for all,” says Jason Knauf, CEO of The Earthshot Prize. 

“This pivotal research gives us reasons for optimism. This is a blueprint for turning ambition into action to place our planet on a path of rapid repair.”

Original.

FOTD Sept 9

Freethought of the Day (FOTD) is a daily calendar brought to you courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It highlights names, birthdates, quotes and other historical information of known atheists, agnostics and religious skeptics.

Today, September 9, there are two entries: Leo Tolstoy and Michel de Montaigne.

Leo Tolstoy

On this date in 1828, the great Russian novelist Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy was born as a landed count on his family’s Yasnaya Polyana estate near Tula. After serving as an officer in the Crimean War, his sense of social justice began to surface and he founded 13 schools for peasants after serfdom was abolished in 1861. He had a religious crisis in his 40s that caused him to denounce the powerful and corrupt Orthodox Church. Tolstoy called the church an “impenetrable forest of stupidity” and a “conscious deception that serves as a means for one part of the people to govern the other,” according to biographer Tikhon Polner (Tolstoy and His Wife, 1945).

Tolstoy, in such books as Critique of Dogmatic Theology, wrote that Jesus Christ was human, not divine, and rejected miracles and immortality. In My Confession (1882) he wrote, “If there is no higher reason —and there is none — then my own reason must be the supreme judge of my life.” The books were banned by church censors and Tolstoy was called an “impious infidel.” In 1895 he gave up his property, living as a nature-worshipping peasant, like his main protagonist in War and Peace.

In that novel he wrote, “Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges or beliefs.” As James A. Haught wrote in 2000 Years of Disbelief, “Many people who reject supernatural Christianity nonetheless embrace Christ’s message of compassion. Tolstoy carried this pattern to an extreme. He renounced organized religion and was excommunicated in 1901 by the Russian Orthodox Church — yet he became almost a monk, living in service to others.”

He espoused an ethical and ascetic Christianity. In What Is Religion? (1902), Tolstoy wrote, “One may say with one’s lips: ‘I believe that God is one, and also three’ — but no one can believe it, because the words have no sense.”

In 1862 Tolstoy married Sofia Andreevna Behrs, daughter of a court physician and 16 years his junior. They had 13 children, eight of whom survived childhood. Their later life together has been described as one of the unhappiest in literary history. Sofia was upset about his attempts to reject his wealth, opposed to his teachings she saw as radical and had grown envious of the attention he gave to his Tolstoyan “disciples.”

In 1910 he left home secretly in the dead of night in winter in an apparent attempt to escape her tirades and died of pneumonia a day’s journey from home after collapsing at the Astapovo railway station. “The Last Station,” a 2009 film about his final year, was based on a novel by Jay Parini. Christopher Plummer as Tolstoy and Helen Mirren as Sofia were both nominated for Oscars.

Photo: Tolstoy in a 1901 portrait by Ilya Repin.

“Religious superstition consists in the belief that the sacrifices, often of human lives, made to the imaginary being are essential, and that men may and should be brought to that state of mind by all methods, not excluding violence.”

— Tolstoy, "The Slavery of Our Times" (1890)

Michel de Montaigne (Quote)

“Men of simple understanding, little inquisitive and little instructed, make good Christians.”

— Michel de Montaigne (1533-92), French philosopher, "Essays" (1580)

 

stochastic terror

This is an editorial recently published in The Alabama Reflector. I'm reminded of the armed right-wing nut who recently tried to attack Democratic candidate for Senate in Ohio, Dr. Amy Acton. Fortunately he was stopped before he could do any harm. The kind of rhetoric that Britt and Tuberville have been using to describe El-Sayed in Michigan (and Democrats in general, for that matter...uh, Communism anyone?) incites their base to do something like a physical attack. Stochastic terrorism. Trump practices that. A lot. In my opinion, Britt and Tuberville (and Trump) know what they are doing, which makes it even more evil and insidious.

Katie Britt and Tommy Tuberville’s rhetoric about Abdul El-Sayed is dangerous

ALLISON BERKOWITZ

I was troubled to recently read comments by Alabama U.S. Sens. Katie Britt and Tommy Tuberville about Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for a U.S. Senate seat in Michigan, and his supporters. Britt called him a “terrorist sympathizer” and a “jihadist sympathizer” on television. Sen. Tuberville went a step further and posted online that Dr. El-Sayed is a “terrorist” and a “radical Islamist.” These are inflammatory accusations leveled at a physician and public servant who has spent his career trying to make the lives of Americans better.

I have been a fan of Dr. El-Sayed for years, reading his books (“Healing Politics” and “Medicare for All”) and listening to his podcast (“America Dissected.”) He is a family man who went into public health after seeing how broken our health care system is. El-Sayed became an avid advocate for better and more affordable access to health care for Americans. His campaign for the U.S. Senate is centered on “Medicare for All” and reducing corporate influence in government, ideas reflecting what many Alabamians want, too.

Disagreeing with his positions on health care or foreign policy is fair in a democracy. For example, I don’t expect that our U.S. senators will wake up tomorrow supporting universal health care or agreeing with serious criticisms of Israel. But calling him a “jihadist” is not a policy criticism. It uses language that has real, potentially fatal consequences.

That difference matters, especially here in Alabama. We have a small but vibrant Islamic community made up of people who are as American as anyone else and who already navigate suspicion they did nothing to earn. When U.S. senators use words like “jihadist” and “terrorist” to describe a Muslim candidate, it doesn’t stay confined to one race in Michigan. It reinforces the idea that all Muslim Americans are inherently suspect. It puts ordinary Muslim Alabamians at greater risk of harassment or worse. 

We have seen how demonizing language aimed at a public figure, or a type of people more broadly, can translate into real hostility, even violence, towards a whole group of private citizens. For example, anti-Muslim hate crimes went up significantly in the lead-up to the 2016 election when Islamophobia was so prevalent at the national level. What’s to say there couldn’t be similar consequences here in Alabama in 2026 due to our senators’ words and attitudes? 

Additionally, I’d ask the senators to consider how their language mischaracterizes El-Sayed supporters like myself who simply see the country differently than they do. Sen. Britt said that El-Sayed’s supporters “hate America.” Sen. Tuberville’s rhetoric had a similar tone, only more extreme. As James Baldwin put it, loving this country more than any other in the world is exactly why he insisted on the right to criticize it perpetually. When elected officials frame the deeply American act of dissent as evidence that someone “hates America,” it suggests either a troubling misunderstanding of civics and American history or a desire to exploit that misunderstanding in others. 

I don’t expect Sens. Britt and Tuberville to agree with El-Sayed’s politics, and I don’t expect every Alabamian to either. But I do expect the senators representing our state to debate ideas rather than brand their opponents as terrorists. That shouldn’t be controversial. It should be the bare minimum.

ALLISON BERKOWITZ

“Allison Berkowitz is an active legislative advocate focused on social and economic justice. Her professional interests center on political and policy practice, as well as self-care for social workers.”

Medicare for All

We are a long way from having a national health insurance program in the United States. Practically every other "civilized" or "Western" country in the world has a form of national health insurance. Leaving us in the mud. Currently, 10 states still have not expanded Medicare. All of them are "red states" save purple Wisconsin. And thanks to Trump, millions across the country no longer are even enrolled in the Affordable Care Act (the ACA, or "Obamacare" if you will) because the subsidies have been cut. 

Private insurance companies have sunk their capitalistic tentacles deeply into our disorganized healthcare system, and getting them out will be tricky. It's doable, if we have enough civic-minded, and not profit-minded, elected officials. Until the US does something resembling Medicare for All, we cannot claim we are the greatest country in the world. Far from it. Trump seems to be trying his best to make the US one of those "shithole" countries he condemns.

Below is some decent info I came across on Medicare for All. Will we ever get there? Not under Republicans, you can be sure of that.

Medicare for All vs. Single-Payer Healthcare Systems

Medicare for All
Single-payer systems
How it would work
Takeaway

Medicare for All is a proposal for a single-payer healthcare system in the United States. Single-payer systems refer to health insurance programs that are governed by one organization.

Single-payer healthcare systems can be found worldwide. They vary in how they are funded, who is eligible, what benefits they offer, and more.

Medicare for All is a proposal to create a single-payer healthcare system in the United States.

This article examines how single-payer systems work and how Medicare for All stacks up as a proposed health insurance option in the United States.

What is Medicare for All?

If passed, Medicare for All will be a tax-funded, single-payer health insurance program that would provide healthcare coverage to every person in America.

The Medicare for All proposal would be an expansion of Medicare, the health insurance program that covers Americans age 65 and older. Medicare is currently broken into different parts:

• Part A
• Part B
• Part C (Medicare Advantage)
• Part D

There is also Medicare supplement insurance, also known as Medigap. Each part of Medicare provides different forms of healthcare coverage.

Together, Medicare Part A and Part B are what’s known as Original Medicare. Part A covers inpatient care, while Part B covers outpatient services.

Medicare Part C, or Medicare Advantage, covers everything under Medicare Parts A and B, as well as extras, such as:

• prescription drugs
• dental
• vision
• hearing services

Some Medicare Advantage plans also cover fitness and meal delivery services.

Medicare Part D and Medigap are both add-ons for Original Medicare.

• Medicare Part D is prescription drug coverage, which helps cover the cost of your medications. 
• Medigap is supplemental Medicare insurance that helps cover some of the costs associated with your Medicare plan, like copays and deductibles.

Medicare for All expansion

Expanding Medicare to Medicare for All would involve:

• providing coverage for all individuals, regardless of age or health status
• offering Original Medicare coverage, including inpatient and outpatient medical insurance
• adding additional coverage, such as reproductive, maternity, and pediatric care
• lowering prescription drug prices and offering more choices for prescription drugs

Medicare for All would also change the way healthcare services are paid for. With Medicare, you are responsible for paying:

• deductibles
• premiums
• coinsurance
• copays

You must pay these fees to stay enrolled in your Medicare plan and receive coverage.

Under Medicare for All, there would be no monthly premiums or yearly deductibles. You would owe nothing at the time of your services. Instead, your healthcare plan would be prepaid through taxes and contributions.

What is a single-payer system?

Medicare for All is only one type of single-payer system. A variety of single-payer healthcare systems are currently in use around the world in countries such as Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, Australia, Sweden, and others.

The overall idea behind a single-payer healthcare system is that one group is responsible for collecting and distributing funds to provide healthcare services to the entire population.

However, there is no single definition of a single-payer system, and there are different ways that a healthcare system like this can be organized.

In a 2017 study Trusted Source, 25 different proposals for a single-payer healthcare system were analyzed. The researchers found that the common healthcare functions included:

• revenue and contributions
• eligible population
• provider payment
• covered benefits
• eligible providers

Single-payer functioning

Further, there were differing options about how each of these functions would be handled under a single-payer system.

For example:

• Collection of funds, or revenue, could come from federal funds, taxes, or premiums. 
• Pooling of funds, or eligible population, could be based on an individual’s residency. 
• Allocation of funds, or provider payment, could be population-based, fee-for-service, or global budget.

Single-payer benefits

Generally, when it comes to covered benefits, all single-payer healthcare systems aim to provide coverage for essential health benefits. These benefits include:

• inpatient and outpatient medical services
• preventive and wellness services
• mental health services
• prenatal, maternity, newborn, and pediatric services
• rehabilitation and substance misuse services

Switching to a single-payer healthcare system would likely affect the current government-funded healthcare options, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Some proposals, like Medicare for All, call for an expansion of these programs. Other proposals call for the programs we have to be discontinued in favor of a replacement option in which everyone can enroll.

Medicare for All as a single-payer system

Here’s how Medicare for All would function as a single-payer healthcare system:

• Revenue and contributions. Medicare for All would be funded through income tax increases, premiums, and contributions.
• Eligible population. All residents of the United States, regardless of age or health status, would be eligible for health coverage under Medicare for All.
• Provider payment. Services administered by Medicare for All providers would be paid for on a fee-for-service basis using a fee schedule.
• Covered benefits. Medicare for All would cover comprehensive health benefits, including any services medically necessary to diagnose, treat, or manage a condition.
• Eligible providers. All providers under Medicare for All must follow national minimum standards and the rules and regulations set by the Act.

The Medicare for All program follows the “true” single-payer system model, in which public health insurance is run by the government and funded by taxes. It would be provided to all Americans, without cost-sharing or up-front fees, and without the competition of private insurance plans.

The takeaway

While there are multiple single-payer proposals on the table for healthcare in the United States, Medicare for All is the most widely known and supported.

As a single-payer program, Medicare for All would provide comprehensive healthcare benefits to all people in the U.S. at no up-front cost.

It would be primarily tax-funded, use a fee schedule for provider payments, and cover all essential health benefits.

The information on this website may assist you in making personal decisions about insurance, but it is not intended to provide advice regarding the purchase or use of any insurance or insurance products. Healthline Media does not transact the business of insurance in any manner and is not licensed as an insurance company or producer in any U.S. jurisdiction. Healthline Media does not recommend or endorse any third parties that may transact the business of insurance.

Source