Healthcare politics
There are horror stories under the current US healthcare system far worse than any of those being cited from foreign programs as scare tactics by national healthcare opponents.
Republicans were willing to spend $1 trillion over a decade on a war in Iraq, but are vehemently opposed to spending $1 trillion over a decade for healthcare forfor 50-70 million Americans.
I'll still be surprised if they get substantial healthcare passed. My guess is that, in the near term, they'll fall bacl on a package of "improvements" which will limit cancellations, prohibit pre-existing conditions policies, and probably include increases of SCHIP, Medicaid, and the like.
(Is introducing the abortion funding issue a way out for the Dems? They can blame fundamentalist Republicans for blocking healthcare on abortion alone.)
Republicans were willing to spend $1 trillion over a decade on a war in Iraq, but are vehemently opposed to spending $1 trillion over a decade for healthcare forfor 50-70 million Americans.
I'll still be surprised if they get substantial healthcare passed. My guess is that, in the near term, they'll fall bacl on a package of "improvements" which will limit cancellations, prohibit pre-existing conditions policies, and probably include increases of SCHIP, Medicaid, and the like.
(Is introducing the abortion funding issue a way out for the Dems? They can blame fundamentalist Republicans for blocking healthcare on abortion alone.)
posted by mikevotes at
6:30 AM
7 Comments:
Anything short of a universal, public option is no reform at all. It's just tap dancing. Period. I happen to think a Canadian-style single-payer system is a good idea (with some tweaking), but I'm not militant about it. There are innumerable other public/private systems on the planet to serve as starting points. One merely needs to look at any (and every) other modern, first-world country on Earth.
That said; it won't happen. Not this year. Not with this congress. Maybe not without a populist "revolution" of sorts -- a real public outcry.
By
-epm, at 7:54 AM
Health care should not be a for-profit operation.
For instance, no one expects to see the police force to turn a profit.
No one expects the Public Library to make money.
No one expects the Post Office to make money.
No one expects you to have to subscribe to the Fire Bureau for help in case your house burns.
In the same way, public health care should be available to anyone for the minimum possible cost.
I can't see how a for-profit health care system can even be defended.
By
Anonymous, at 9:02 AM
EPM, I'm a nationalized healthcare guy as well.
As for a "revolution,"it'll be tough, because you have a large number of people who feel relatively well served by their employer provided insurance and will be easily stoked about the risks of a change.
....
Anon, For me, it's not so much about whether healthcare should make money, it's a question of who is making that money and what value are they providing. Health insurance companies make an awful lot of money for a dubious function.
Arguably, you could say they make some "efficiencies" (through those highly criticized policies we're trying to fix,) but the way they get to those "efficiencies," largely doesn't contribute to the health of the end users.
It's cost control with little concern for health value provision.
(Part of that is that the current system doesn't make health insurers responsible for long term individual health. As people change jobs and insurers, small expenses for long term benefit don't make business sense.)
By
mikevotes, at 10:17 AM
People don't see the true cost of their employer subsidized insurance. I think a national plan would have much more support if folks realized the impact to their wages -- and even jobs -- that the burden of insurance costs places on employers. Every dollar an employer gives to Blue Cross (or whatever) is a dollar that isn't going toward salaries.
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is, in my opinion, that without a national, universal, effective health care system, America will continue to slip further behind the rest of the industrialized world. Not just in social development, but in real political and economic ways.
By
-epm, at 10:50 AM
I'm always surprised that some of the older line employers don't get on board. How much better off would GM or Ford be if they were freed of their healthcare overhang from current and retired employees?
By
mikevotes, at 1:24 PM
I think many big, old line employers are on board with a national health plan. Though they're perhaps conflicted when it comes to funding such a plan, not to mention the "big picture" of such a plan.
It could be possible to implement a half-assed plan that would provide for universal coverage, but also stick it to employers as well. This is where I think the Repubs will go in shaping any legislation... much like the total pooch-screw they did with Medicare Part D.: Take a popular idea (prescription coverage) and coating it in poison (too may options, no negotiated pricing, etc).
By
-epm, at 2:17 PM
Today, 7/15/09, the Senate has passed a bill out of conference, and the President urged Congress to support and pass the bill, even without Republican support.
Given the ineffectiveness of the current system, the lack of any alternative from Republicans, the 70% approval by Americans for reform, I cannot criticize the President for going forward without bi-partisan support.
The bill is NOT a single payer plan (which I prefer) and I have not read the bill.
My expectations from Congress to write a decent, clean bill, is low.
In theory, good input from the opposition should create a better bill, but Republicans seem to think that the current system is fine, or think that the Democrats will fail and the American people will turn to them for a solution.
I'm disappointed that the President eliminated single payer from the start.
I can't help feeling that anything short of single payer along with Congresses inability to write good legislation, will make thins worse, not better.
By
Unknown, at 2:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home