tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083673.post5870063473868351833..comments2023-10-28T03:07:12.758-07:00Comments on Mirror On America: Serious Healthcare Reform - Starting from ScratchBrian http://www.blogger.com/profile/07872444863142531165noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083673.post-5999946064125199292009-06-25T06:58:47.209-07:002009-06-25T06:58:47.209-07:00Apparently there are two bills in Congress right n...Apparently there are two bills in Congress right now that promote single-payer, universal healthcare:<br /><br /><a href="http://johnconyers.com/healthcare" rel="nofollow">HR676</a> sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.healthcare-now.org/on-s-703-the-american-health-security-act/" rel="nofollow">S703</a> sponsored by Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT)<br /><br />Given the political climate do they have a snowball's chance in hell of being enacted? It is doubtful. But we have to remember that there are people in Congress fighting the good fight. Even if they are currently marginalized let's remember who they are and support them. We need more legislators like them and they need our support.redantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15608670655422465211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083673.post-72914134716784451472009-06-04T15:28:26.699-07:002009-06-04T15:28:26.699-07:00There is an interesting article in the Washington ...There is an interesting <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303239.html" rel="nofollow">article in the Washington Post</a> that deals with how right-wing domination of the media has resulted in a lopsided debate which has all but written off the single payer option:<br /><br /><i>Polis, Edwards and Grijalva also noted that proposals for a Canadian-style single-payer health-care system, which they support, have fallen off the political radar. ... Edwards noted that if the public plan, already a compromise from single-payer, is defined as the left's position in the health-care debate, the entire discussion gets skewed to the right. This makes it far more likely that any public option included in a final bill will be a pale version of the original idea. </i><br /><br />Chris Bowers at the <a href="http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=E3799203C09ABC86723C1FD4805F0C4D?diaryId=13616" rel="nofollow">Open Left blog</a> argues in a very insightful post that:<br /><br /><i>Real health care reform--aka, a public option--is the lowest bar for progressives to clear with the current congress. It has the most lobbying behind it, bringing in not only health care reform groups, but also unions and mutli-issue groups like MoveOn. It only requires 50 votes in the senate, whereas Republicans will force 60-votes on virtually everything else. It is a very popular, not only in absolute terms (60%+), but also relatively popular compared to other major Democratic agenda items like climate change. And President Obama won't have a 60%+ approval rating forever, either.<br /><br />The bottom line is this: if we can't get our most popular major agenda item, during the peak in Democratic popularity, when we need only 50 Senate votes, and on the issue where we have given our strongest lobbying and activist efforts, then we aren't going to pass meaningful progressive legislation on anything else.</i><br /><br />Some food for thought. What especially irks me is that no matter how much of a good idea single payer is as a healthcare plan, it is being compromised already and being watered down because the influence of those who oppose it is just so strong and pervasive in our political system and culture. And this with a Democratically-controlled Executive Branch and Congress!redantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15608670655422465211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083673.post-50225177209447517342009-06-04T00:15:12.203-07:002009-06-04T00:15:12.203-07:00With insurance not adding any value to the equatio...With insurance not adding any value to the equation what's the point? They don't improve healthcare. The only reason that I can see to include insurance is to make the industry happy. <br /><br />Employers will not have to pay in a dime. Business is happy not to have to fool with that any more. the program is paid for by payroll deductions. <br /><br />I'm going to give you some information that I will put into a future post. Phase out medicare and medicaid over 5 years. Roll everyone into this universal plan. The money is already there by excluding insurance companies. Single americans pay $3500 per year. Families pay $5000. WE are done. Everyone is covered. Money is taken out of your payroll check. For some Americans the amount of money will be less than what was taken out before. <br /><br />Finally, we can improve the quality of medical care delivered by giving MD's bonuses for adhering to the Best practices. The Best practice guidelines are drawn up by physicians and not government employees. <br /><br />Everyone wins!!ecthompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04855397168190907547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083673.post-49655229010929795622009-06-03T12:28:36.330-07:002009-06-03T12:28:36.330-07:00Dr. Thompson,
I agree... the plans being offered ...Dr. Thompson,<br /><br />I agree... the plans being offered seem too complicated. But much of it has to do with satisfying the obstructionists in the GOP and Moderate Democrats who are concerned about costs. <br /><br />But the more I thought about a parallel public program (to compete with the private sector) the more I believed it could work.<br /><br />There's always the problem of employers dropping their coverage as soon as the new system goes into effect. That would make the costs shoot up.<br /><br />I'd rather have single payer...but unfortunately there is not enough support in Congress....and not enough money to pay for it.Brian https://www.blogger.com/profile/07872444863142531165noreply@blogger.com