The bigger point that I knew would come out here is this:
Lots of you want the gov't to put a system together that funds single payer...but you don't want to pay for it yourself. You want someone else to pay for it. As soon as I bring up an example where it might hit you, the middle class taxpayer, I start getting expletive laced retorts.
Folks its damn easy to spend other people's money. I'd be a lot more impressed with your calls for single payer if you were willing to pay for it
I don't see anyone doing what you're claiming. Besides the fact that makes literally no sense (you're literally claiming people are saying "I want single payer, I just don't want to support the change to single player...because?"). Its literal nonsensical argument. You're somehow conflating people saying that if the wealthy paid taxes commiserate with their gains, single-payer would be easy to fund and transition to as "I don't want my money going to support single-payer". That's not even remotely the same thing.
What examples did you bring up where it might hit them? I'm assuming you've made blanket claims about it causing taxes to skyrocket? There would be a tax increase that would have to predate the actual implementation (unless we showed some weird rationality and, I don't know, said, maybe if we cut some military spending a bit for just 5-10 years; or maybe tax things that have a massive adverse affect on public health a bit to help compensate for the health care costs that it creates) but we could transition to it over time, and if done smartly it wouldn't be that big of change to overall individual spending. Especially if we start by growing the medicaid group with the people that are constantly blamed for ballooning the private insurance costs (where the government then could tell companies taking advantage of people who's lives very likely depend on their product/service to both fuck off and pay a fine for being such a piece of shit; and thus reign in the costs for those groups - definitely not the bitchass "high risk pool" bullshit that would underfund the hell out of them while also letting insurers gouge them to death - potentially literally so), so then insurance premiums can fall while tax revenue increases (keeping overall costs more smooth) as we transition more and more people.
Plenty of studies show single-payer would very likely reduce individual spending on health care (meaning even with paying more taxes, you could potentially be spending less money overall as your health care costs could be reduced more than the amount your taxes increased), especially long term. It is one reason why some of the true rational "fiscal conservative" Republicans are actually starting to show some support, as it could actually reduce costs (and also could reduce government spending, or at least make better use of the money spent; for instance it makes a lot more sense that if people would get regular health care versus just when they really need it, it could help lessen or prevent the severity of the health issues that would put them on medicaid; the old ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure).
With guaranteed health care, I bet you would see a large uptick in the workforce, and so would increase tax revenue in general. Not only that but better health (and stability in health) leads to better workers/workforce. Plus it'd help with stress (which stress alone is a major health issue).
Single-payer would lead to more health care jobs (Obamacare alone actually did this, and its not even remotely close to what single payer would provide). It would almost definitely add more doctors, nurses, and care providers, and these are also jobs that are difficult to outsource. Plus it could help stay in front of potentially devastating health crises (take the antibiotic situation, where because it wasn't profitable enough, most major pharmaceutical companies had stopped even researching and developing new ones; or medicine costs, where companies chasing profits would stop producing low margin things, enabling one company to then control the market and slowly balloon costs more and more).
Folks, its damn easy to spout off bullshit. I'd be a lot more impressed if you showed even basic ability to understand the things people are actually talking about. That's why you're getting expletive laced retorts. You're obviously willfully ignoring things to prop up your own belief of how things are and would be.
Oh and one last thing. You mentioned how single payer would mean we also have to pay for the richest persons' health care. That's totally fine. They deserve health care too. Even if they aren't taxed like they absolutely should be (which even if they were, they'd still have more than enough money that if they wanted the absolute best health care cost be damned, they'd still have plenty of money to afford it; plus they'd get all the aggregated benefits of health care developments that single player would help create). Them being taxed how they are is a mostly separate (but definitely has some relation to this) issue. There's no reason we couldn't (or shouldn't) change both.