I've been getting around to that in my own blogs which have not stirred much interest.

I have no reason to commit to one method of reform, so far, so I'm keeping an open mind and trying to sift through the chaff coming from all sides for the wheat which might be there so as to have a sound opinion.

Single-payer runs up against the distinction of Uniformity vs. Diversity, in addition to Big Government concerns. It offers reduced overhead but the actual savings are not clear (could be as little as under 10% or as much as over 25%) of current overall costs. Medicare is hardly perfect, and studies have shown that over 90% of insured Americans are reasonably happy with what they have.

I think I understand Obama about "single-payer is nice but 'you caint git thar from here'.

I think single-payer is not reform but revolution, in the USA. As such only violence (virtual, economic, or otherwise) is likely to get it implemented. It might warrant a Constitutional Amendement, depending on which flavor of single-payer is under consideration.

2% employee + 7% payroll tax is 9%. What controls costs to keep those from rising? What rations health care which is current rationed by price of premiums, deductibles, and denials of service? Is is National, Federal, State, or what? Citizens only, or anyone at all?

I'm not sure the problem of moral hazard is that significant, but of course checks and balances are necessary to deal with criminal cheating or frauds. And profit motives are stifled by excess uniformity (while of course excess diversity generates waste and is no guarantee of quality either).

I think single-payer is really socialized medicine with a facade of "it's only social insurance".

Things like that.

Thanks for asking.