Deans health insurance "Band-aid Plan" is KRAP

[The Sushi Bandit]

I read Dean's health plan and it is krap!

America needs single payer coverage, not a bunch of band-aids on the current mess. We must get the insurance companies, drug companies and the "I'm a doctor to get rich" crowd out of our pockets.

Remember, Dean is an ex-doctor and will not let single payer go through because of all his $$$ support from the industry.

[gully]

1. The single payer plan has been defeated time and again...

and, it's not crap. It has been working quite well in Vermont.

You need to take steps toward progress, it doesn't happen overnight, KWIM?

[molly]

3. MEDICAID/MEDICARE

[Nicholas_J]

41. What works in Vermont

Is a single payer plan.

Medicaid, no more, no less.

What are you stating WORKS quite well in Vermont?

There is NO special health care system, operating in Vermont, under different rules than Medicaid for any other state, or do other benefits than those available under medicaid exist in Vermont...

And as to it working well, a Commission, established by Dean, that consisted of members appointed by him found quite the opposite.

Also they found that Vermont was average among the states in the quality and quantity of its delivery of Health care:

Governor's Bipartisan Commission

On Health Care Availability & Affordability

Final Report

I. Authority, Scope

A. On January 24, 2001, Governor Howard Dean issued an executive order establishing a Special Governor's Bipartisan Commission on Health Care Availability and Affordability........

B. Based on what we have learned, we do agree on this: Health care in Vermont is near a state of crisis -- some of us would say it is already in crisis -- and all health care sectors are on edge. We also note that many of these problems are national or even global in scope and that our abilities to solve them at the state level are limited.

C. Health care costs in Vermont, now exceeding $2 billion a year, are of a sufficient magnitude, however, and are increasing at a sufficient rate to place state government itself in jeopardy, including every program for which it appropriates money. By comparison, Vermonters budgeted $1.8 billion for all state government services in FY 2001 (not including federal funds).3

We are rapidly approaching the point at which these costs will directly conflict with our ability to do such things as to maintain roads and bridges, for example, or to provide cost-effective services to our infants and children, to promote agriculture and tourism, or to provide any other services our citizens have come to expect.

D. We do not have a health care system in Vermont.4 That means:

1. No one is in control.

2. No one is responsible for ensuring that high-quality medical care is adequate for the needs of the public.

3. No one ensures that medical charges are appropriate or that they are paid in full.5

4. There is a "disconnect" between the consumer receiving health care and the entity paying the bill. Consumers are shielded from the cost of the service.

5. There is no global budgeting or targeted growth planning for health care in Vermont.

6. There is little in the way of public accountability for the performance of health care institutions, or for their long-term planning.

7. Although administrative costs, including those associated with government paperwork burdens, have reached an unacceptable level, no one has been able to do anything about it.

E. This commission does not recommend the Single Payer option, even though we have been told by The Lewin Group that it could cover all Vermonters, including more than 51,000 currently uninsured, for 5 percent less than what we are collectively paying now.6 Some of our opposition is on philosophical grounds, but in practical terms, we reject that option for a variety of reasons, including...

This is a comlete report, going on for many pages, indicating whqatever it was that Dean did, it was a complete mess, that there was no planning whatsoever, an that the health care system, was simply an unmanaged hodge podge of health benefits mandated by the federal government, poorly administered, if it could even be called administration, by Deans Vermont.

[genius]

2. The main complaint from Vermonters is that they can't get treated

Dean so cut the funding that doctors had to be humanitarians to treat people in Vermont under the plan.

[ianbruce]

4. What's an "ex-doctor"?

Maybe you're thinking of that episode of Star Trek where Dr. McCoy forgets how to wire back Spock's brain?

In any case. You've presented a rather simplistic argument. The point isn't whether Dean thinks single-payer is a good idea (he probably does), but rather, what has a chance in hell of being passed.

[killbotfactory]

5. Good luck with that.

And I'll see you in 40 years when we still don't have single-payer.

[CMT]

6. actually physicians

are coming out for guraranteed medical insurance for everyone. It is no longer like it was in the early 60's when the AMA opposed Medicare.

[The Sushi Bandit]

10. The Kucinich plan

...is enhanced 'Medicare for All' -- a universal, single-payer system of national health insurance, carefully phased in over 10 years. It addresses everyone's needs, including the 40 million Americans without coverage and those paying exorbitant rates for health insurance. This approach to healthcare emphasizes patient choice, and puts doctors and patients in control of the system, not insurance companies. Coverage will be more complete than private insurance plans, encourage prevention and include prescription drugs.

Health care is currently dominated by insurance firms and HMOS, institutions that are more bureaucratic and costly than Medicare. People are waiting longer for appointments. Fewer people are getting a doctor of their choice. Physicians are given monetary incentives to deny care. Pre-existing illnesses are being used to deny coverage.

Over time, the Kucinich plan will remove private insurance companies from the system -- along with their waste, paperwork, profits, excessive executive salaries, advertising, sales commissions, etc -- and redirect resources to actual treatment. Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone, physicians and health practitioners do ...and thousands of physicians support a single-payer system because it reduces bureaucracy and shelters the doctor-patient relationship from HMO and insurance company encroachment.

Non-profit national health insurance will decrease total healthcare spending while providing more treatment and services -- through reductions in bureaucracy and cost-cutting measures such as bulk purchasing of prescriptions drugs. Funding will come primarily from existing government healthcare spending (more than $1 trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7% (almost $1 trillion). The employers' tax is less than the 8.5% of payroll now paid on average by companies that provide private insurance. For budgetary details, click here.

This type of system -- privately-delivered health care, publicly financed -- has worked well in other countries, none of whom spend as much per capita on healthcare as the United States. 'We're already paying for national healthcare; we're just not getting it, says Kucinich. The cost-effectiveness of a single-payer system has been affirmed in many studies, including those conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office. The GAO has written:
"If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to private insurers) would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."

Over the years, groups and individuals as diverse as Consumers Union, labor unions, the CEO of General Motors, the editorial boards of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and St. Louis Post Dispatch, and Physicians for a National Health Program have endorsed a single-payer approach. It is sound economics -- what actuaries call 'Spreading the Risk' -- to extend Medicare to younger and healthier sectors of our population, thereby putting everyone in one insurance pool. It permanently saves and improves Medicare, while eliminating duplicative private and government bureaucracies.

While enhanced Medicare for All makes economic sense, it has not made political sense to some, due to the power of the private insurance lobby. The streamlined Kucinich plan is very different than the 1993 Clinton HMO-based plan, a complex proposal that left big insurance firms in a central role. After Clinton's 'Managed Competition' plan failed without coming up for a vote, talk-radio host Jim Hightower asked President Clinton why he hadn't put forward a "simple, straightforward" single-payer plan "instead of all this bureaucracy." Clinton replied, "I thought it would be easier to pass" a bill that left the insurance industry in place. "I guess I was wrong about that."

[CMT]

11. I think I support a canadian style national health plan too

even though I have heard many Canadians say they have long waits to get some services, but while I may support it--I don't think the country will support it and getting it thru congress will be next to impossible. Clinton had a very moderate plan and yet he failed. Now of course if DK is elected then he can say he has a mandate to pass such a plan, but it would still be difficult.

[Mairead]

23. The Clintons had a plan nobody could understand!

It was a mess. It could be attacked with impunity because the Clintons couldn't explain it in a way that anyone could understand. So people would have had to take it on faith, and the Clintons didn't have that much credibility in the bank.

[nbsmom]

18. Some things you should really think about.

Single payer sounds like the cure for a great many ills, and perhaps it is. But it creates almost as many problems as it solves, and those problems are the private insurance lobby's fault.

For example, is the program you're envisioning Medicare for All administered from a federal standpoint, with COHC (and reimbursement) adjusted by region? Or does it end up being Medicaid administered by states?

Who makes the call about who gets the expensive life-extending liver transplants? Do you give them out first come first serve? What if you've got a run on premature triplets in your region (can't exactly put those on a quota system, you know). Who makes the tough judgement calls? Your local government bureaucrat?

While we're at it, what sort of format would work best, in terms of health care delivery model? Some people actually prefer the Kaiser-style (standalone, one-stop shopping medical care, walk-in urgent care, Rx and hospital all in one location) vs. free-standing medical groups and affiliated hospitals? Do you make people choose, or do you choose for them?

And best of all, what about Medicare makes people actually pay attention to how much things cost, or how they could actively play a role in keeping themselves healthier now so they have a better quality of life later? Spreading the risk by adding more people to the pool is just one part of the solution. Reducing the risk is another effective tool -- and that means all of us need to look long and hard at our nation's eating and exercise habits so we don't have a boom in diabetics and heart disease later... or our poor air quality so we don't have to deal with a growing population of asthmatics.

Consumer-driven health plans are seen as anathema by some, but they could actually put the decision making back in the hands of the people who should be thinking and talking about it. Plans like these could also be seen as a tax-sheltered incentive for people to actively plan and save for their own medical care so they become the keepers of their own medical destiny (kind of like saving for retirement via 401Ks, and not expecting government programs to be the end-all and be-all for your golden years.)

Medicare was developed back when we didn't have five flavors of ulcer medications, or Big Pharma loaded with $$$$ to spend on straight-to-consumer advertising, and if you think that hasn't played a HUGE role in driving up the cost of our prescriptions in this country, you haven't thought long enough.

Single-payer from a one-federal-government standpoint also discriminates horribly in terms of catastrophic or long-term care cases, and I can't imagine that it will work any better after a single payer plan is phased in over ten years. This is one place where the privately funded well-heeled citizen will always be MUCH better off, and please don't kid yourself that single-payer will turn this country's health care delivery system into less of a caste system than it is now.

[dajabr]

21. More inside-the beltway grandstanding...

While still nothing gets done.

[virtualobserver]

32. my only question is.........

what happens to all of the companies and jobs that are linked to the current system. I'm not trying to attack here, this is a genuine question.

Also, how do you combat the unbelievable amounts of money that would be spent to try and kill a single payer system.

I'd like single payer, but I'm just pessimistic about its chances.

[loyalsister]

44. There's no doubt it's a good plan

but ask even the most liberal legislator you can find what the chances are of getting something like this passed. I did. She laughed. There's no way this could pass, and the point is that it's serious enough now that we need to get something passed ASAP.

[clar]

7. swat

As Dean says, and most of us know, passing a single payer plan is pie in the sky right now. For pity's sake, let's at least get a foot in the door here. Think of Dean's plan as a Trojan horse. BTW, Dean was for a single payer plan in VT in the early nineties. Upon recognizing that he couldn't get such a plan to pass, he expanded the current system.

I'm so tired of people passing up practical good for impossible perfect.

[Keynes1984]

14. national health care

exactly. thats why medicaid was passed in the 70's, and is now "demonized" today. you simply cannot trust the bourgeoi with the health of the collective good. we should not be so mad about the medical plan passed by the reactionary republican congress, its just a down payment for another bill down the line.

[The Sushi Bandit]

16. U.S. doctors call for health-care plan

CBS MarketWatch reports Fed up with high costs and barriers to providing care, more than 7,500 U.S. doctors on Tuesday proposed gutting private health insurance in favor of a national health plan. The group outlined its agenda in "Physicians' Proposal for National Health Insurance," an article appearing in Wednesday's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. "The situation is rapidly worsening and it's becoming clear to doctors that the health-care financial system is getting in the way of good medical care," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an internist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who was a lead author of the article. The group's 7,782 doctors is one of the largest to endorse such an article. Among the names are two former U.S. Surgeons General, David Satcher and Julius Richmond. In the presidential campaign, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio is the only Democratic candidate advocating a single-payer system. A decade ago, President Clinton tried to advance such a plan but failed to win Congressional support. More than 41 million Americans are without health insurance, including a third of all Hispanics, 19 percent of African Americans and 10 percent of non-Hispanic whites, the study said.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B552DD40E-E2D5-4A74-A9D7-5EDE5D51A973%7D&siteid=google&dist=google

[Mairead]

25. The establishment lies again

Contrary to that Marketwatch article, the Clintons did NOT propose a single-payer plan. They proposed a hotchpotch similar to the ones being proposed by the keep-elite-hands-in-our-pockets Dems today.

[Mairead]

24. No, Dean was NOT 'for a single payer plan in VT in the early nineties'

He promised to VETO a single-payer plan if the legislature passed it!

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

29. Since Dean..

..has said exaclty the opposite, do you mind giving links to your claim? Your venom for Dean is getting pretty unruly.

[Mairead]

34. It's not 'venom' except possibly in your mind

And the cite has been posted many times in the past.

Although the single-payer plan was not brought to the floor for a vote during the current 1994 session, many predicted it would have been defeated. Additionally, Gov. Howard Dean, MD, had promised to veto it if passed. Dean, the nation's only physician governor, allied with the state's medical community in pushing for reform that was not government run.

http://www.chausa.org/PUBS/PUBSART.ASP?ISSUE=HP9410&ARTICLE=L


Now I hope--but doubt--you'll ask yourself: what are the implications of these discrepancies between the record and Dean's claims?

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

36. I'm not familiar with that source

It's a catholic website. While I'll guess their intentions are good, they didn't quote Dean saying he'd veto anything, nor provide any way to check that claim that he said he'd veto the single payer plan. Maybe you don't mind reading religious websites about medical issues that make claims without backing or quoting and take them at face value, but I do. Try again, little buckaroo.

Edit: grammar

[Mairead]

37. You don't want to believe it, sweetie? Don't.

If they quoted him, you'd want a tape recording. If they had a tape recording, you'd want a certification by a voiceprint analyst. If they had that you'd want an admission by Dean. If they had an admission by Dean you'd want it notarised. If they had it notarised, you'd want the notary to be someone you know. If the notary were someone you know, you'd claim that you weren't there to hear him say it so you want another cite. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Sorry, I'm not going to play.


(nice slam at the mackerel-snappers, btw. do you do that a lot?)

[dsc]

38. Would you accept that relative to Kucinich

I somehow have my doubts.

[Mairead]

39. I did.

I accepted your single cite about him not opposing DOMA as a candidate.

[dsc]

43. My ciatation quoted him

and was a mainstream newspaper (linked to his site BTW) yours is a religious site which didn't quote Dean. If you think those are the same then I have a bridge to sell you.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

40. Um ok

But no, I trust very little when it comes to religious things, and I certainly don't take a 3rd person account of what someone said as the final almighty authority of what someone else was thinking. But it's ok, SWEETIE, you weren't going to change my mind (or probably anyone elses with your weak arguement) so no harm done.

[gully]

33. SWAT...

You said~ "I'm so tired of people passing up practical good for impossible perfect."

Bravo!

[LuminousX]

8. Whoever gets elected

will be working with a Republican congress for at least two years, which means if we want to address the health care issue, we will need to institute plans that either works around Congressional authority or doesn't directly offend Republican sensibilities. Once we have people covered, then we can continue the 'reform' and streamline it and make it more cost effective.

Or we fight for a single-payer system (which most doctors approve of, so your ex-doctor argument is false) which gets shot down... again... and these people go another four years without coverage.

[izzie]

9. I understand why he is going this way and he said why.

The women was right on the line, and really had some good thoughts. I can not recall her name yet I can see her face in my mind. Sorry.

[w4rma]

12. Dean's universal health care proposal

Note I support a single payer system as proposed by Harry Truman, which Dean's is not. However, Dean's proposal has a very good chance of being written into law and we will still work to try to get Truman's single payer system put into place.

…
For a year now, I have been traveling this country advocating a repeal of Bush's tax cuts so that we can provide universal healthcare and restore fiscal discipline. Many have questioned the political wisdom of challenging the president on politically popular tax cuts.

I believe, however, that given a choice between having health insurance or keeping all of the Bush's tax cuts in place, most Americans will choose health insurance. My plan will cost $88.3 billion -- less than half of the president's tax cut -- with money left over to pay down the deficits run up by this administration.

My plan consists of four major components.

First, and most important, in order to extend health coverage to every uninsured child and young adult up to age 25, we'll redefine and expand two essential federal and state programs -- Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Right now, they only offer coverage to children from lower-income families. Under my plan, we cover all kids and young adults up to age 25 -- middle income as well as lower income. This aspect of my plan will give 11.5 million more kids and young adults access to the healthcare they need.

Second, we'll give a leg up to working families struggling to afford health insurance. Adults earning up to 185% of the poverty level -- $16,613 -- will be eligible for coverage through the already existing Children Health Insurance Program. By doing this, an additional 11.8 million people will have access to the care they need.

Many working families have incomes that put them beyond the help offered by government programs. But this doesn't mean they have viable options for healthcare. We'll establish an affordable health insurance plan people can buy into, providing coverage nearly identical to what members of Congress and federal employees receive.

To cushion the costs, we'll also offer a significant tax credit to those with high premium costs. By offering this help, another 5.5 million adults will have access to care.

Third, we need to recognize that one key to a healthy America is making healthcare affordable to small businesses.We shouldn't turn our back on the employer-based system we have now, but neither should we simply throw money at it. We need to modernize the system so employers will have an option beyond passing rising costs on to workers or bailing out of the system entirely. Fortunately, we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system.

With the plan I've put forth to the American people, we'll organize a system nearly identical to the one federal workers and members of Congress enjoy. And we'll enable all employers with less than 50 workers to join it at rates lower than are currently available to these companies -- provided they insure their work force. I'll also offer employers a deal: The federal government will pick up 70% of COBRA premiums for employees transitioning out of their jobs, but we'll expect employers to pay the cost of extending coverage for an additional two months. These two months are often the difference between workers finding the health coverage they need, or joining the ranks of the uninsured.

Finally, to ensure that the maximum number of American men, women and children have access to healthcare, we must address corporate responsibility. There are many corporations that could provide healthcare to their employees but choose not to. The final element of this plan is a clear, strong message to corporate America that providing health coverage is fundamental to being a good corporate citizen. I look at business tax deductions as part of a compact between American taxpayers and corporate America. We give businesses certain benefits, and expect them to live up to certain responsibilities.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_health

The plan will cost an estimated, "$88.3 billion". This is paid for from some of the money saved by repealing Bush's tax cuts.

The Dean proposal expands Medicaid and CHIP to ages 25 and under. CHIP is expanded to adults earning up to "185% of the poverty level" (currently, $16,613).

For the "capitalist" half of the Dean plan: Folks with high health premium costs recived "a significant tax credit" to cushion the costs. The current "employer-based system" in use now will be modernized by upgrading it to the same healthcare coverage that "federal workers and members of Congress" have available to them.

Small buisnesses of less than 50 workers get lower rates than their larger competitors. Employers pick up the tab for 2 months in between jobs, but the costs of the COBRA premiums for those 2 months are subsidized, at 70%, by the federal government for employers. Corporations will receive "business tax deductions" as an incentive for supplying health care to their employees.

[jburton]

13. For the policy wonk

PowerPoint analysis of Dean's plan. Think tables and acronyms.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/Policy_-_Health_-_Universal_Health_Care.ppt?docID=901

[The Sushi Bandit]

15. Think Single Payer - not a wing and a prayer

[Rose Siding]

17. Yesterday he said he'd sign that bill

should it EVER pass Congress. Which it won't. Get those guys out of your pockets *after* the public learns that universal health care is indispensable.

Unless you can count the repubs that would support single payer, it is a non-starter.

[Vikingking66]

19. Sushi Bandit, a question if you would

I'm a Dean supporter, and I love the idea of single payer coverage; it's the most sensible thing to do. But would you let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Single payer coverage would face enormous difficulties in being passed that a more incremental version would not. Is it more important to get the perfect system or to get people insured NOW, and move toward single-payer over time when it would be more likely to pass?

Let's recall that any single-payer program would have to get majority approval in at least 2 or 3 House and Senate committees - all of which are controlled by people openly hostile to "socialized" medicine - and
then get approval from a majority of the full House and Senate. Even then, if there are discrepancies between the two bills, 3 out of 4 conferees could wreck it without anyone being able to do anything.

Bill Clinton couldn't get a health insurance program that was far less than single-payer through a Democratic Congress. Could any Democratic president, be he Kucinich or Dean, get single-payer coverage through a Republican Congress which was loath to give prescription drug coverage because the "folks back home" thought it was "socialized medicine" and
welfare?

I back Dean's plan because it could get passed. So could Kerry's.
But I challenge to show me how Kucinich or anyone else could get
single-payer coverage.

[diamondsoul]

20. Kucinich gave the numbers yesterday on-

The Healthcare Reform forum. We're already paying for single-payer healthcare at FULL implementation, only we're not getting it. The thing about Kucinich's plan is that it wouldn't be fully imlemented until 2013, IIRC. Even so it's got to be better than paying for care we don't get. It also doesn't allow for insurance companies to determine what care is essential. They can't even compete with the single payer coverage. Can't win, can't pass, can't can't, canm't....yeah ok, it can't, he can't, we can't. Gimme a break. He can, We can, and IT can if everyone would just look and say YES this is what I want!

[deutsey]

22. I think the person is just asking how Kucinich plans to get it passed

Truman tried and failed. Clinton tried and failed. If these two guys, who were pretty damn savvy at manipulating the machinations of American politics couldn't get single payer through, I think it's fair to wonder how Kucinich can do it.

That isn't to say Kucinich can't do it. I hope he can. Just what's his plan to do so for breaking through the logjams of the past?

Unfortunately, it just isn't enough to say we want it. The guys we're going against are masters of deception and media manipulation and backroom wheeling and dealing. We need someone who knows what to do to smash through all that crap.

[Mairead]

27. Clinton wasn't TRYING to get a single-payer plan passed

The Clinton plan was NOT a single-payer plan, it was a complicated plan that kept insurance-company hands in our pockets.

After Clinton's 'Managed Competition' plan failed without coming up for a vote, talk-radio host Jim Hightower asked President Clinton why he hadn't put forward a "simple, straightforward" single-payer plan "instead of all this bureaucracy." Clinton replied, "I thought it would be easier to pass" a bill that left the insurance industry in place. "I guess I was wrong about that."

[deutsey]

28. OK. Fine.

Let's shift the focus from Clinton to Kucinich.

The same forces that killed whatever Clinton and Truman before him were trying to get through are still there.

This is not a smart-ass challenge, but a sincere question: What is Kucinich planning to do to push his plan through? His Department of Peace is a great idea, too, but to the best of my knowledge this remains a noble ideal, not a reality.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

30. He was asked...

...at the last forum (that was televised, I can't keep them all straight...maybe the Iowa one?). He was specifically asked how he'd get his health care plan passed, and his answer was that during the election, he'd energize so many people to vote for him that they'd all vote in a Dem Congress as well. That was his plan. Pretty sharp, eh?

I think the forum is up on Cspan by now, for anyone who wants to see for themselves.

[deutsey]

31. Thanks.

I don't see where his response addresses the reality of how to get a plan like this through Congress. A majority of people voted for Gore and a there were millions protesting the invasion of Iraq and looked what happened in both cases. Popular support doesn't mean Congress will bend in favor what the people want. I think a lot of people were behind the Clinton plan too, and he had a Democratic Senate and House, didn't he?

Dennis, I'm with you on the need for a single-payer, but we've got to have more a gameplan than let's energize lots of people to vote for you and a Dem Congress (if that's what you said).

[Mairead]

35. It all depends on what we're trying to do, I think

If we're simply doing ABB, then electing Dennis might not be enormously different (in a mandatory sense) than electing anyone else.

But if we elect him because he represents the set of policies we want to see made law, then it seems logical to me that we'd also want to change the composition of the Congress to support him. He's counting on that--the same effect FDR had.

Interestingly, that might put the country in approximately the same place it was in upon FDR's election. I suspect Dennis wouldn't need to try to enlarge the SCOTUS, though, since there are fewer reactionaries today than there were then.


(edit) Apropos getting his healthcare plan in particular through -- the plan is a very simple, easily explained one. It would be MUCH harder to attack than the Clintonesque sort favored by Dean et al. because of 4 key factors (a) it could be shown that it would cost the same amount nationally that we're paying now, and businesses actually slightly less; (b) it would build smoothly on an existing, proven, national program that enjoys enormous public support; (c) it would ACTUALLY be comparable to other successful national healthcare programs; and (d) a functionally-identical one is now openly supported by thousands of physicians and at least 2 former Surgeons General. That's a lot.

[Mairead]

26. Clinton couldn't get a complex multi-payer plan through Congress

The Clinton plan was so complex that nobody could explain it in a clear way. Which meant that it could be attacked with impunity since no matter what detractors said, they couldn't be shown to be lying.

[genius]

42. The title says it all. Dean has an in-name-only-plan

After all, if he hadn't taken money away form government services in Vermont, he couldn't have helped out his corporate friends. What Resident does this remind you of?