a simple solution to the "problem" of single-payer being seen as a "government takeover"

[unblock]

simply run the single payer program through a "quasi-government institution" similar to the way the government "meddles" in the mortgage market through gnma, fnma, and fhlmc (yes, i know they have, and have had different structures over time).

i'm thinking the government sets up a corporation to run the single-payer program, requires everyone to participate, and issues shares to participants, the way a mutual insurance company works -- the insured people ARE the owners. but, they also put certain irrevocable, protective features in its charter, such as, profits and salaries are capped to sometime very modest. any excess funds must be returned as annual dividends to the owners, i.e., the insured.

if that isn't "private" enough to fly politically, they could make the ownership tradeable, so i could sell my right to any dividends like shares in any other corporation. i don't might trading away financial assets as long as there remain those irrevocable covenants that prevent those controlling the entity to abuse it.

in any event, the government always retains the right to take it into receivership if it screws up.


voila, a PRIVATE corporation running single-payer. everyone happy.

thoughts?

[BlooInBloo]

1. Um, you realize they'll whine about ANYTHING Obama tries, right?

They'll just make shit up - their job is relatively easy, since they're not constrained by the truth.

[unblock]

2. oh, of course, i know that, but humor the wonk in me :)

seriously, the realy trick is to look past their rotten tactics and to negotiate with the actual concerns and fears and interests.

[BlooInBloo]

6. They have no actual concerns. You're addressing something that isn't the problem.

[unblock]

7. their concern is that, philosophically, they want to have private profit

that's not my concern, but if it's theirs, fine, let there be private profit. just make all participants owners and their concern is addressed.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Who are "they"?

[unblock]

9. pro-business "conservatives"

[wtbymark]

3. PUBLIC- period. Private corporations have 1 goal.

show me one private company, institution or corporation who's main goal is not to make a profit.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Well non-profit organizations cannot, by definition, make profits

[unblock]

5. well, mutual insurance companies, for one, don't have much a a profit motive

and non-profits explicitly don't.

and various government supported entities have worked while allowing a profit motive, provided they are properly constrained to behave properly. fnma did pretty well for the public until they spun it off as a fully private entity. that was the root problem there.

[TheKentuckian]

10. Creative concepts but they wouldn't have a bit of it

They don't want a bunch of stake holders they want the industry to make massive profits on our backs. They always oppose such things unless they come up with them anyway and then they still manage to privatize them.

These idiots would privatize the damn military if it wouldn't be a public tsunami that would wash them away. Hell, they already did on the down low in Iraq.

I think we have to begin to accept that they cannot be reasoned with at all. All we can do is keep a decent tone and pretend to try to deal with them.

[quantass]

11. It's a good idea

sadly the goal of repubs and the rest of congress is to make sure profits are flowing from the death of people