They should have started with single payer. I mean, even if they weren't going to get it, it is what most other western democracies have. It's the one program that makes sense. But okay, we live in a country that doesn't make sense.. But at least start with that. During the campaign, Obama said, 'If we were starting from scratch, single-payer would make sense.' Well then, let's start from scratch - that is kinda where we are in this country right now. And if they had started from that, then the fall-back compromise position would have at least been the public option. But they didn't even start with the public option - he didn't even defend that.
During the campaign, Obama said, 'If we were starting from scratch, single-payer would make sense.' Well then, let's start from scratch - that is kinda where we are in this country right now. And if they had started from that, then the fall-back compromise position would have at least been the public option. But they didn't even start with the public option - he didn't even defend that.
and as Dr Marcia Angell said to Bill Moyer
But if you look at it as a matter of policy, the President's absolutely right that the status quo is awful. If we do nothing, costs will continue to go up. People will continue to lose their coverage. Employers are dropping health benefits. Things will get very bad. The issue is, will this bill make them better or worse? And I believe it will make it worse. [...] BILL MOYERS: Well, you remind me 45 thousand people, as Wendell Potter said earlier, die every year for lack of health insurance. That should be-- they're-- MARCIA ANGELL: It's not lack of health insurance. It's lack of health care. There is a difference between health insurance and health care. You can have insurance offered that is too expensive to buy or too expensive to use. What good does it do?
The issue is, will this bill make them better or worse? And I believe it will make it worse.
[...]
BILL MOYERS: Well, you remind me 45 thousand people, as Wendell Potter said earlier, die every year for lack of health insurance. That should be-- they're--
MARCIA ANGELL: It's not lack of health insurance. It's lack of health care. There is a difference between health insurance and health care. You can have insurance offered that is too expensive to buy or too expensive to use. What good does it do?
But what if she's right. what if it makes things worse ? I don't know, I can't judge this situation. But the fact that something that should have been easy, a perfect do something unequivocally good has been so finessed and watered down that people of good intention can seriously question if it will make things worse, makes me think somebody at the top sold you out. And I think that's what dvx is saying. keep to the Fen Causeway
No, actually, that is not my stance. While true that almost anything would be better than what we have, I'm supportive of the bill because it's a good bill.
And, I'm sorry, but 'let's start with single payer' and 'start from scratch' isn't doable just because a smug libertarian comedian says so.
Contrary to what's being said on the blogs, this country is NOT all behind single-payer, tearing down the system, or killing the insurance industry. A small segment is, and it's gathering steam, but the vast majority are not. There's support for the public option, which would only require offering a service in the current 'market.' Single payer would require actually taking over the assets of the current privately owned infrastructure - there's not broad public support for that.
And 'what if the bill makes it worse' is simple fear. There's no evidence whatsoever that the bill will make things worse. All impartial evidence shows the bill will be an improvement. And I do have the experience and knowledge to be an informed judge of the situation. The bill addresses most of our immediate problems as well as laying the foundation to get to where we want to go.
It's not lack of health insurance. It's lack of health care. There is a difference between health insurance and health care. You can have insurance offered that is too expensive to buy or too expensive to use. What good does it do?
Marcia evidently has not read the bill, which specifically addresses the problems with junk insurance policies and puts annual caps on what individual's have to pay. In other words, it expressly prohibits these things she's worried about. And the 'health care not insurance' talking point is meaningless -- I'm to the point of ignoring anyone who repeats it.
Right now, insurance IS our health care. Almost our entire infrastructure is in private hands. The bill gives us access to the health care system we currently have in place and provides for building a public system, which is currently close to non-existent. I don't believe there's any way to get from 'private' to 'public' without taking these steps. The 'kill the industry' 'take out the middleman' sentiments are nifty, but isn't this a goal? How does one go about doing that right now, exactly, in one fell swoop? Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Single payer would require actually taking over the assets of the current privately owned infrastructure
This statement is false.
Text of H.R. 676 (pdf) 30pp
Single-payer is a benefits financing proposal to be funded by premia collected through existing state and federal tax facilities and administered by CMMS et al. The objective of combining Medicare and Medicaid coverages and eliminating enrollment eligiblity according to age is to capitalize bargaining power of insureds in the open market for medical goods and services. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
damn - wrong there, too! that sentence is all fucked up. I meant, detrimental to people and to the benefit of the industry... or something.... obviously I don't re-read or self-edit much before hitting the post button... Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Contrary to what's being said on the blogs, this country is NOT all behind single-payer
Attitudes may have changed since 2006. You will recall at that time Mr Bush implemented a nationwide consultation steered by a DHHS commission, Citizens Healthcare Working Group, pursuant to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, Sec. 1014.
Following this nationwide citizen engagement, the Working Group is required to prepare and make available to the public this interim set of recommendations on ``health care coverage and ways to improve and strengthen the health care system based on the information and preferences expressed at the community meetings.'' Following a 90-day public comment period on these recommendations, the Working Group will submit to Congress and the President a final set of recommendations. The law specifies that the President shall submit a report to congress on the recommendations within 45 days of receiving them, and designates five congressional committees that will hold hearings on that report and the recommendations: the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the Senate, the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives. Following are the interim recommendations of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group, along with descriptions of how we conducted our work and what we heard from participants in community meetings, respondents to our Web polls, and citizens who wrote in to tell us their views. These recommendations outline a vision and a plan for achieving broad-based change in health care in America. We recognize that the issues involved are complex and challenging, and that it will take time and a great deal of technical expertise, as well as political will, to make the changes we think are necessary. Over the next three months, we will continue to actively pursue public input as we deliberate and further refine these proposals. During this process, we will provide greater detail and explanation of our recommendations, as well as further analysis of what we are hearing from the American people before issuing the final recommendations to the Congress and the President.
Following are the interim recommendations of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group, along with descriptions of how we conducted our work and what we heard from participants in community meetings, respondents to our Web polls, and citizens who wrote in to tell us their views.
These recommendations outline a vision and a plan for achieving broad-based change in health care in America. We recognize that the issues involved are complex and challenging, and that it will take time and a great deal of technical expertise, as well as political will, to make the changes we think are necessary. Over the next three months, we will continue to actively pursue public input as we deliberate and further refine these proposals. During this process, we will provide greater detail and explanation of our recommendations, as well as further analysis of what we are hearing from the American people before issuing the final recommendations to the Congress and the President.
Some Daily Kos bloggers reported their experiences in local focus groups. I just now attempted to access Citizens Healthcare Working Group survey results, "Dialogue with America," published August, 2006, by the Bush WH, ironically. That data has been SCRUBBED. Fortunately, I copied a few data points.
Calitics: Interesting Finds on Health Care in the LA Times Poll
Extending Medicare to cover all Americans, creating a government-run system: 53% yes, 36% no
It's not public opinion that is the main obstacle - it is the vast wealth of the insurance industry, which has made both Congress and the White House reluctant to take on more fundamental and more useful reforms.
That decision can be defended. But let's be clear about what drove DC Democrats' decisions on this. It wasn't public opinion. And the world will live as one
To call either him as an individual or The Democrats as a singular entity a sell out, to make accusations that the industry wants this bill, that it's a bailout, that they're all engaging in kabuki and serving their 'masters' is really destructive, imo, as well as being generally stupid.
What good does it do? How does it help us reach our goals?
I think, given the political environment in general and the makeup of the current congress in particular, the bill is a really great start that will help millions. How are we going to build on that if we keep tearing down those who've helped make it happen? Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
abolishing the private health insurance industry
This is an AHIP fallacy repeated to undermine popular support for public financed insurance as described in H.R. 676. That bill does not compell enrollment in the public plan; nonetheless everyone is eligible to apply for coverage. The bill does not compell persons to terminate private insurance coverage, nor does it prohibit persons from purchasing private insurance. H.R. 676 does prohibit beneficiaries duplication of coverages as do all commercial insurers; all policies contain a coordination of benefits provision to prevent over-insurance i.e. duplicate payments of claims. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
