This page shows all the posts for the "Health Care" Category from E Pluribus Unum
The most current posts are on the main page.

September 17, 2007

Pop Quiz: Who Stole John Edwards' Health Care Plan?

by Mark Adams

If you answered that "unabashed Marxist" Hillary Clinton, (go ahead and giggle at that one, I did), you win.

Seriously, Hillary is best know to Wingnuttystan as the failed author of what they like to call "Hillarycare" and I've been waiting since 1994 for it to be implemented. But instead of immediately entering the presidential race by offering a health care plan she has been identified with for a decade and a half, she originally said that she'd like some kind of vague "universal" program to be implemented by the time she leaves office after her second term.

She's upped the timetable to the first term, and echoing John Edwards includes a mandate that requires medical coverage for all (Obama's plan does not) making it truly universal, sets up a competing public system to compete with private insurers like Edwards proposes, removes obstacles to access for pre-existing conditions (Edwards, ditto), and except for the devil-in-the-details tax considerations and the relative burden on small businesses, it does look every bit as "very, very sound" as the one offered by John Edwards.

Continue reading "Pop Quiz: Who Stole John Edwards' Health Care Plan?" »

June 19, 2007

Michael Moore's SiCKO: The Trailer

Laughter isn't the best medicine. It's the only medicine.

Get Well Soon.
June 29th.

May 20, 2007

“You're telling me that al-Qaida prisoners get better medical treatment...?”

Salon's Andrew O'Hehir reviews Michael Moore's newest, Sicko, and comes away impressed:

When Americans do get to see "Sicko," Moore says, "They will understand that this was about helping 9/11 rescue workers who've been abandoned by the government. They're not going to focus on Cuba or Fidel Castro or any other nonsense coming out of the Bush White House. They're going to say: 'You're telling me that al-Qaida prisoners get better medical treatment than the people who tried to recover bodies from the wreckage at ground zero?'"
Hmmm. Wonder how they'll spin that?

Oh -- and the part about Moore, a right-wing blogger and his cancer-stricken wife will blow your mind. But you'll have to read that part for yourself.

"I hope this film engenders discussion, not just about healthcare, but about why we are the way we are these days," Moore told us. "Where is our soul? Why would we allow 50 million Americans, 9 million of them children, not to have health insurance? Maybe my role as a filmmaker is to go down a road we might be afraid to go down, because it might lead to a dark place."
Dark but entertaining for sure.
When Moore interviews Tony Benn, a leading figure on the British left, his larger concerns come into focus. Benn argues that for-profit healthcare and the other instruments of the corporate state, like student loans and bottomless credit-card debt, perform a crucial function for that state. They undermine democracy by creating a docile and hardworking population that is addicted to constant debt and an essentially unsustainable lifestyle, that literally cannot afford to quit jobs or take time off, that is more interested in maintaining high incomes than in social or political change. Moore seizes on this insight and makes it a kind of central theme...
I haven't seen the film yet, and/but I have a concern here. If Moore presents this as a shadow-policy, coordinated at the highlest levels, I'm skeptical because everyone knows no one is in charge. But that's a minor point. Either way you cut it, it's a devastating observation.

So I guess this film is going to rile people up. There is certainly something in Moore that brings out the worst in right-wing Bush apologists. They just go...nuts when he pops up on the radar. Of course, maybe there's not so many of them left and the few-and-far-between might finally have learned how to control themselves by now.

As far as the accuracy of my movies goes, [says Moore] I think the record speaks for itself. Maybe people will say: He warned us about General Motors, he warned us about school shootings and he warned us about Bush.
Crikey. This'll definitely drive them around the bend.

I can hardly wait!

April 20, 2007

Insurance is for Catastrophe

by shep

Quite obviously, American insurance-industry-run heathcare is a failure teetering on collapse. It is completely unavailable to nearly one-sixth of the population and only tentatively available to everyone else, except for the wealthy. Employer-paid health insurance, the most accessible form of healthcare for most people, now drives our decisions about who we work for, who in the family works and whether we can afford to change jobs. People are regularly denied access to heathcare, because they are sick.

The system is poorly regulated, either by industry or government. 100,000 people die from medical mistakes in hospitals alone. The average cost for drugs is two to four times higher than in other industrialized countries and also injures and kills many thousands. The real regulator and last recourse for those who are harmed by the actions of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and/or doctors is a widely-reviled tort system that siphons off huge amounts of money (in addition to the huge amounts siphoned-off by insurance companies themselves) that should be being spent on medical care.

Yet, our system is monstrously expensive compared to other industrialized countries. It severely undermines US competitiveness in world markets. As technology and our collective average age continues to advance, it is predicted that more people will be driven from the system, healthcare will have to be (even more) rationed, its cost will bankrupt the government, or all of the above. It also, due to the short-term profit motives of insurance companies, becomes ever more expensive because people don’t have easy access to wellness or preventative primary care that might help them avoid costly disease.

Our market-driven healthcare system is literally killing us. Only those whose thinking is corrupted by simple-minded market ideology remain committed to such a system and only the fact that our elected officials are beholden to the status quo industries’ campaign cash explains why we haven’t abandoned it for a rational alternative. Here are five critical things that we need to fix our current system that a market-based, insurance industry approach can never achieve:

1) Pool risk and cost as broadly as possible, creating the lowest average cost per person for healthcare.

2) Allow for a simple administrative system with a single point of contact, one set of rules and one processing system.

3) Create a level competitive marketplace for all healthcare providers.

4) Allow for an emphasis on cost-saving wellness, preventative and primary care.

5) Give the public-at-large control over the specific features of the healthcare system through their elected representatives.

We will be forced to adopt a government-administered single-payer system of some sort eventually, like every other industrialized nation on earth. The question now is only how much more human suffering and how many more $billions we will waste on the current industry-run system.

Next: what a government-administered single-payer system might look like, including the role for insurance providers (actually, I’ve already given that one away).

(Cross-posted at Queen Of All Evil)

Update: OK, I realize that saying healthcare, “is completely unavailable to nearly one-sixth of the population,” is a bit of hyperbole. What I am talking about is the entire system: primary care, specialists, screening, wellness, etc. If waiting until you're sick enough to wait four to eight hours to be seen in an emergency room and then being sued by the hospital and having your credit destroyed does it for you…

February 15, 2007

I hate insurance companies like other people hate the government

The Republicans used tort reform and smaller government as a way of firing up their base. So if the Democrats need an issue to fire up their base, insurance reform would be my first pick.

Here's just the latest two examples of what makes my blood boil:

[State Farm Insurance,] the nation's largest residential insurer said Wednesday that it would stop selling new homeowners and commercial policies in storm-damaged Mississippi because of lawsuits and legislative saber-rattling over the company's handling of claims from Hurricane Katrina.

The decision ... is the latest by a major insurance company to reduce its risks by retreating from the nation's coastlines. Allstate Insurance has canceled or weakened coverage, or refused to write new policies in more than a dozen coastal states including Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida and Texas.

"We've reluctantly come to the conclusion that it is no longer prudent for us to take on additional risk given the uncertain legal and business climate" in Mississippi, said Fraser Engerman, a spokesman for the Bloomington, Ill.-based insurance giant.

Translation: we're getting sued big time and the legislature is about to force us to pay up. So we're taking our ball and going home. So there.

This is part of an ongoing trend of insurance companies cherry picking the easiest, lowest-risk accounts in order to maximize their profits. And not only that: they have ALWAYS dragged their feet when it is time to pay a claim. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita we had to nag and nag and nag our insurance company to come up with a settlement that would actually make our home whole again -- and then they raised the rates as though it was a shock to them that hurricanes happen in Lousiana.

Hel-lo? What is insurance for anyway? Don't they have any actuaries who can actually, you know, read a weather table?

Then there's this:

United Health Group, its United HealthCare and Oxford subsidiaries and several United and Oxford executives, including former United CEO William Maguire, are accused of violating the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in a law suit filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court...by Jamaica Hospital Medical Center and Flushing Hospital Medical Center.

The hospitals...accuse United Health Group...of implementing a “rogue business plan” on a “national level” that, for more than three years, “has contributed to UHG’s profits, which, in turn, have been utilized in attempts to justify outlandish compensation to Maguire and to enhance the value of illegally backdated options for UHG stock” which were given to Maguire, other UHG senior executives and to managers of its business units.

[...]

David Rosen, president and CEO of both hospitals, said: “UHG, United and Oxford have clearly established and refined a pattern of deceitful practices and myriad means to improperly retain money they owe to service providers, and to arbitrarily and unjustifiably deny payment for their members’ medical services under their plans.

This is why I believe that the government should be the sole provider of health insurance for everyone: at least you have a voice in how the system gets run. With insurance companies, the best you can do is be a shareholder and then it's one share equals one vote. The big guys control the system and dictate who gets covered and who doesn't. It's all about the bottom line and devil take the hindmost.

I'd be happy to see Medicare for all and an end to all health insurance companies. Period.

P.S. Read more on the United Health lawsuit.

December 19, 2006

A liberal is just a conservative who got a rate increase from his health care insurer

From John Derbyshire over at The Corner:
CHRISTMAS PRESENT [John Derbyshire]
My health insurer has just notified me, in a brief form letter, that my monthly premiums are to rise from $472.33 to $857.00 on January 1st. That's an increase of 81 percent. ***E*I*G*H*T*Y*-*O*N*E* *P*E*R*C*E*N*T*** Can they do that? I called them. They sound pretty confident they can. Ye gods!
***B*w*a*h*a*h*a*h*a!***

P.S. Did I ever tell you that I hate insurance companies the same way Republicans hate the government? The difference, of course, is that I have a chance at changing the government. But insurance companies? Not so much.

(HT to Kevin Drum)

October 26, 2006

What voters expect (and want) the Democrats to do if they take Congress

In an eye-opening survey, Gallup has found that voters expect (and would approve of) Democrats doing the following things if they take over Congress on November 7:

  • Set a time-table for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
  • Increase the minimum wage
  • Pass legislation to provide healthcare to those who do not have it
  • Allow Americans to buy prescription drugs from other countries
Similarly, voters do NOT expect Democrats to do the following, nor would they approve if they did:
  • Repeal the Patriot Act
  • Take steps to make same-sex marriages legal
  • Cut back on efforts to fight terrorism
Voters expect Democrats to do the following, but they do NOT approve of these actions:
  • Reject most of Bush's nominations for federal judges
  • Increase federal income taxes.
Lastly, voters do NOT expect Democrats to do the following, but would approve if they did:
  • Implement all anti-terror recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.
Bonus round: Voters expect Democrats to do the following and are evenly split on whether they approve/disapprove:
  • Conduct major investigations of the Bush administration.
Here's what Democrats have said they would do in the first 100 hours of a Democratic House of Representatives:
  • Raise the minimum wage
  • Repeal the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices
  • Replenishing student loan programs
  • Fund stem cell research
  • Implement those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished.
And my Republican friends tell me that they expect Democrats to do the following things (and that they do NOT approve):
  • Make George W. Bush's life a ghastly, living hell
  • Abolish Christmas
  • Provide unlimited nights and weekends for terrorists using cellphones overseas.
  • Install Osama bin Laden as Commissioner of Baseball

October 25, 2006

Jesus Hates Democrats, So Vote AGAINST Stem-Cell Research

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

Jim Caviziel, star of Passion of the Christ, appears in an anti-stem cell ad with a creepy subliminal message.

I won't provide a link to the full ad -- it's easy enough to Google.

But, rest assured, it is a real ad. I understand it will be running tonight on TV during the World Series broadcast -- live from Missouri where Amendment Two is a hot-button issue in the close race between Republican incumbent Jim Talent and Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill.

The anti-stem cell bunch is running this ad to counter the powerful ad featuring Michael J. Fox -- you remember that convicted felon Rush Limbaugh mocked Fox for faking it or purposely going off his meds to shoot the pro-Amendment Two ad.

So now, the anti-crowd is rolling out some other big guns as well -- Jeff Suppan, the starting pitcher for St. Louis in tonight's game also appears in the ad.

Man, if ever there was a reason to root for the Detroit Tigers in the World Series, this is it!


Others appearing in the anti-stem cell ad include Kurt Warner of the Arizona Cardinals and Patricia Heaton of Everybody Loves Raymond.

These are the battle lines, people: We're for prevention, they're for punishment. One side wants life-saving research to go on; the other side wants to send you to Hell.

Send money to Claire McCaskill's campaign.

What the Democrats and the Detroit Tigers Have In Common (part trois)

If you needed any reason at all to root for the Tigers tonight (who lost to the Cardinals last night to fall behind in the Series 2-1), you have it now: Cards starting pitcher Jeff Suppan will appear in a commercial, to be shown during the game, that comes out against the Missouri ballot initiative favoring stem cell research.

The ad, which will run during primetime, was quickly put together to counter another ad featuring Michael J. Fox -- the ad that Rush Limbaugh called a fake:

"He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."
So let's review: a private citizen, suffering from Parkinson's disease, becomes an advocate for a ballot initiative that might save his life. A famous celebrity, convicted of drug abuse, mocks his suffering and accuses him of playing politics with his disease. Got it?

So tonight Jeff Suppan, professional athelete, will take the field -- against Michael J. Fox. Suppan will appear in a commercial that is against the interests of everyone who feels that research money should be allowed to be used to find a cure for a disease that Suppan and Limbaugh are fortunate enough never to have been afflicted with.

Suppan will be joined by Jim Cavizel (star of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ) and Kurt Warner, quarterback for the the Arizona Cardinals.

Go Tigers and go Democrats!

September 25, 2006

Today is “Donut Hole Day...”

...when the average Medicare enrollee falls into Medicare Part D's donut hole, the gap in coverage for those beneficiaries with annual drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100.

When that happens, millions of seniors caught in the donut hole will go to the pharmacy this fall and be forced to pay thousands of dollars for prescriptions.

Another fiasco brought to you by the rubber-stamp Republican majority Congress.

August 30, 2006

America eats its young

Garrison Keillor says we're sticking the next generation with debt and an unjust war. Solution: Cut healthcare for people with "Bush/Cheney" bumper stickers.

June 13, 2006

Attack: Now is the time for Democrats to go on the offensive

Rove is off the hook, Zarqawi is dead, Busby lost in California, Bush's polls are on the uptick -- these are all part of the instant conventional wisdom that says it's been a bad week or two for the Democrats.

Baloney.

The same people are still in charge who meant to destroy the career of Valerie Plame. The same people are still in charge who lied us into a war that has cost over 20 thousand American casualties and $300 billion. The same people are in charge that built a criminal enterprise that ran out of the House Majority Leader's office. And Bush's polls? His approval rating has been below 40% forever.

Democrats would do well to keep their eye on the big picture:

End the war in Iraq: It's over. Our work there is finished. Fact is, we killed Zarqawi from the the air. We could have done the same thing without any boots on ground. With Zarqawi out of the picture, the Iraqi security forces, the ministry of defense, the entire government is as ready as it's ever going to be to take over. Let them have it.

Ending the war will also allow us to end the President's unconstitutional seizure of "war powers." And if the rubber-stamp Republicans cannot exercise its oversight authority, the Democrats will.

Ending the war will also reduce the need for us to borrow endlessly from foreign governments. Under the Bush administration we have borrowed $1 trillion in foreign debt -- an amount equal to what was borrowed under all previous presidential administrations. Borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend. It has got to stop.

Getting our finances straightened around will allow us to plan for the day we can be energy independent -- cutting our need for foreign oil. An Apollo-style program will promote jobs, address the problem of global warming and increase our national security.

These are just some of the things Democrats should be standing up for.

You've also got raising the minimum wage, rescinding tax breaks for oil companies included in the 2005 energy legislation, revising the Medicare prescription drug bill to allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices, cutting student loan rates and passing the remaining recommendations for improving national security by the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

If I were a Democrat running for Congress, I'd use a simple formula:

Bush = bad.
Republican candidate = Bush.
Republican candidate = bad.

I'd go on the attack and I'd keep attacking without a let up. I'd attack Bush's dismal record in office; I'd tie Bush around my opponent's neck. Then I'd drop them both into the ocean and watch them sink to the bottom.

Attack, attack, attack. Never ease up. Never, never, never. Never ease up.

May 09, 2006

You're the decider -- what's your decision?

As faithful watchers of The West Wing know, the incoming President has 18 months, tops, to get anything done. So his/her campaign has to focus on what that is -- and leave the rest for later.

That said, I was interested to see this list of issues that Democrats in Blogville have reached consensus on.

Scan the list and tell me -- which one of these you would campaign on?

Atrios:

I think the "liberal netroots" does have a fairly clear consensus on a number of issues. I'm not going to claim every liberal blogger or blog reader agress with everything on this list - that'd be ridiculous - but nonetheless I'd say there's a pretty obvious general consensus on the following:
  • Undo the bankruptcy bill enacted by this administration
  • Repeal the estate tax repeal
  • Increase the minimum wage and index it to the CPI
  • Universal health care (obviously the devil is in the details on this one)
  • Increase CAFE standards. Some other environment-related regulation
  • Pro-reproductive rights, getting rid of abstinence-only education, improving education about and access to contraception including the morning after pill, and supporting choice. On the last one there's probably some disagreement around the edges (parental notification, for example), but otherwise.
  • Simplify and increase the progressivity of the tax code
  • Kill faith-based funding. Certainly kill federal funding of anything that engages in religious discrimination.
  • Reduce corporate giveaways
  • Have Medicare run the Medicare drug plan
  • Force companies to stop underfunding their pensions. Change corporate bankruptcy law to put workers and retirees at the head of the line with respect to their pensions.
  • Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana. Generally move towards "more decriminalization" of drugs, though the details complicated there too.
  • Imprison Jeff Goldstein for crimes against humanity for his neverending stupidity
  • Paper ballots
  • Improve access to daycare and other pro-family policies. Obiously details matter.
  • Raise the cap on wages covered by FICA taxes.
I'm sure I could think of a few more things. I left off foreign policy because I find that most people who write about it imagine they're playing the game of Risk. It's nice to have nice bumpersticker doctrines which are ultimately meaningless, but basically "put grownups in charge" is my prescription. Kick the petulant children out.

...adding a few more things which would be obvious if we weren't living in the Grand and Glorious Age of Bush:

  • Torture is bad
  • Imprisoning citizens without charges is bad
  • Playing Calvinball with the Geneva Conventions and treaties generally is bad
  • Imprisoning anyone indefinitely without charges is bad
  • Stating that the president can break any law he wants any time "just because" is bad
...oh, and I meant to include:
  • Marriage rights for all, which includes "gay marriage" and quicker transition to citizenship for the foreign spouses of citizens.

February 16, 2006

Mark Warner: “If the Republicans offer fear, we need to offer hope.”

I've only had limited exposure to Mark Warner (mostly on paper). And I wasn't exactly bowled over.

But the following piece presents Warner in a different light. And the post is so good that I'm going to apologize in advance for copying-and-pasting the whole thing...

From Reality Bites Back:

How does a pro-choice, pro-government, pro-tax Democrat get elected with an 80% approval rating in the state of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Grover Norquist? How do you counter Republican fear mongering, deception, fear mongering, cronyism and fear mongering? How do you win amidst an ocean of red, riled to a blood-thirsty, mouth-foaming torrent by Rove, Luntz and shotgun Cheney? Last night, I got to meet former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and hear from the man myself. And here's what he had to say...

"Virginia is a southern state." He made that clear as day. `It's not part of New England. It's the state where the Christian Right makes its home. It's 2 to 1 Republican, but there is a way to win.'

His tactic to approaching the Republican base starts with: "I'm a Democrat but, contrary to what you may think..." He paused, indicating that's the way he begins every appeal to a conservative area. He continues `I may not check every box of what you want, but I want to work with you to solve the problems that are important to you.' He mentions jobs, healthcare, education, economic development, and key to this, creating opportunities for `regular Americans' to stay in the community they grew up in by helping those communities compete in new industries of the future. He says he also boldly declares "I will never take away your guns. We need to enforce our existing laws. I'm not going to add a whole bunch of new ones." This, to counter the wall of deception by the NRA's constant "lib'ruls wanna take your guns away" droning.

Continue reading "Mark Warner: “If the Republicans offer fear, we need to offer hope.”" »

January 11, 2006

Subscribe to E Pluribus Unum

Those of you that want to read this blog via a web-based news reader can now choose from several popular choices listed below. You can also find these links near the bottom of my sidebar, just below the Search box.

Just curious -- how many of you do this and what readers do you use?


Subscribe to E Pluribus Unum
(via Feedburner)

(also via Feedburner)

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Subscribe in Rojo

Add E Pluribus Unum to Newsburst from CNET News.com

Add to Google

Subscribe in Bloglines

Add E Pluribus Unum to ODEO

Subscribe in podnova

August 26, 2005

Theory of Moral Hazard: What it is and why it's ruining our health care system

“Moral hazard” is the term economists use to describe the notion that insurance can change the behavior of the person being insured...and not always for the better.

Malcolm Gladwell:

[For example,] if you have a no-deductible fire-insurance policy, you may be a little less diligent in clearing the brush away from your house.

Insurance can have the paradoxical effect of producing risky and wasteful behavior...

Fear of moral hazard, [writes John Nyman in his book The Theory of the Demand for Health Insurance,] also explains “the general lack of enthusiasm by U.S. health economists for the expansion of health insurance coverage (for example, national health insurance or expanded Medicare benefits) in the U.S.”

If you think of insurance as producing wasteful consumption of medical services, then the fact that there are forty-five million Americans without health insurance is no longer an immediate cause for alarm. After all, it’s not as if the uninsured never go to the doctor. They spend, on average, $934 a year on medical care.

A moral-hazard theorist would say that they go to the doctor when they really have to. Those of us with private insurance, by contrast, consume $2,347 worth of health care a year. If a lot of that extra $1,413 is waste, then maybe the uninsured person is the truly efficient consumer of health care....

[Bush's] Health Savings Accounts represent the final, irrevocable step in [this] direction...

Continue reading "Theory of Moral Hazard: What it is and why it's ruining our health care system" »

The American Health Care System: What does all that money buy us?

Malcolm Gladwell, again:

Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

What does that extra spending buy us?

Continue reading "The American Health Care System: What does all that money buy us?" »

8 Problems Universal Health Insurance Could Help Solve

Malcolm Gladwell:

  • The leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is unpaid medical bills.

  • Half of the uninsured owe money to hospitals, and a third are being pursued by collection agencies.

  • Children without health insurance are less likely to receive medical attention for serious injuries, for recurrent ear infections, or for asthma.

  • Lung-cancer patients without insurance are less likely to receive surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation treatment.

  • Heart-attack victims without health insurance are less likely to receive angioplasty.

  • People with pneumonia who don’t have health insurance are less likely to receive X rays or consultations.

  • The death rate in any given year for someone without health insurance is twenty-five per cent higher than for someone with insurance.

  • Because the uninsured are sicker than the rest of us, they can’t get better jobs, and because they can’t get better jobs they can’t afford health insurance, and because they can’t afford health insurance they get even sicker.

August 17, 2005

Universal Healthcare: How you can have Safety and Freedom of Choice

As part of another discussion on universal healthcare, Wince stated flatly that, "You can have safety or freedom."

Well, I disagree. The fact is, you can have both.

Here's how it works (parphrasing Kevin Drum):

real choice means (requires!) a universal healthcare plan that genuinely allows everyone to choose the doctors and hospitals they like best.
Everyone is covered by a basic (not gold-plated) level of coverage. And everyone has a choice. You can even choose to augment your universal plan with more insurance if you find that to be cost-effective. I'm sure there will be numerous insurance vendors (like this one) that will be happy to sell you (or your employer) supplementary insurance.

Safety and freedom. It can be done.

Of course, Wince (and other conservatives) hate this because it means a significant expansion of government, even though this is what people want.

Instead, conservatives like that kind of "choice" which is represented by the The Health Care Choice Act, sponsored by Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona.

Again, Kevin:

If that plan is signed into law, people would get their choice of private healthcare plans, alright -- but it does so by allowing insurers in one state to sell in any other state, thus obliterating state regulation of insurers.
Hey Wince: I'll take my plan any day, because it protects everyone (not just the insurance companies) and it gives everyone a choice.

July 29, 2005

Guaranteed health insurance: We're right, they're wrong

Ezra riffs on an article from Rick Perlstein:

The government should provide health insurance. The government should guarantee health insurance. It should do it because that's the right thing to do, because it'll give workers more freedom to move around, because it'll control costs, because it'll cover everybody, and because, for this job, government-involvement is the best way to handle it.

I wrote a few weeks ago that this isn't about covering the uninsured. If we want to do that, increase the size of Medicaid and slap down an insurance mandate -- it's easily doable. This is about validating our vision of government. On health care, we're right and they're wrong. The public sector is right and the private sector is wrong. We can't be afraid to say that. We can't be afraid to fight for that. And we can't settle for a plan that validates our ends but rejects our means. Validating government is the end because it's the best way to accomplish this. It's also, incidentally, the only way to redeem the Democratic party.

More on this as time allows.

June 16, 2005

Myths and Memes About Single-Payer Health Insurance in the US

A rebuttal to conservative claims.

(HT to shep)

Full Feed RSS

Creative Commons LicenseThis weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2