Paul Krugman on Arnold's health care plan.

[Cleita]

Truthout
Golden State Gamble
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Friday 12 January 2007

A few days ago Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled an ambitious plan to bring universal health insurance to California. And I'm of two minds about it.

On one side, it's very encouraging to see another Republican governor endorse the principle that all Americans are entitled to essential health care. Not long ago we were wondering whether the Bush administration would succeed in dismantling Social Security. Now we're discussing proposals for universal health care. What a difference two years makes!

And if California - America's biggest state, with a higher-than-average percentage of uninsured residents -can achieve universal coverage, so can the nation as a whole.

On the other side, Mr. Schwarzenegger's plan has serious flaws. Maybe those flaws could be fixed once the principle of universal coverage was established - but there's also the chance that we would end up stuck with those flaws, the way we ended up stuck with a dysfunctional system of insurance tied to employment.

more at:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011207G.shtml

The problem is that the Guvenator vetoed a perfectly good plan that had passed our California Legislature, the Assembly and the Legislature, that had the backing of the people as we had petitioned for this plan. Now he's trying to ram through legislation that is written by his major supporters, the insurance industry and the health care industry.

The only good that I can see coming from this plan is that the huge burden that it will impose on middle class Californians and small business will prove to be a big backlash against this carpetbagger governor and maybe we might be able to get the plan that we want.

[Cleita]

1. ...

:kick:

[Tiggeroshii]

2. I agree on most points except..

sine when was Arnold a carpet bagger politician? I always thought he's lived in California since before his citizenship. What am I missing?

[Cleita]

5. For lack of a better word, it refers to my take on Arnold taking

advantage of the dirty GOP tactics to unseat our elected Democratic Governor right at the beginning of his second term. I just don't consider him a legitimate governor considering how he gained the office. Even though he seems to all appearances to be legitimately elected for his second term, I still have reservations.

[Mass]

3. Thanks for posting that.

Krugman makes two crucial points:

1/ While it is good to see that everybody refers to a Universal Health Plan as desirable, it is important to know what the details are before glorifying a plan. At this point, except for Dennis Kucinich's plan, I have seen NO plan that is enough.

2/ Krugman makes a point that is very important. Once you have made insurance accessible to the poorest AND mandatory to those who do not care, it still does not solve the problem of a large part of the uninsured: those who have preexisting conditions and cannot find an insurance at an acceptable price. This is a problem that can difficultly be solved in the frame of a private for profit insurance system. So, the solution is a choice between 3 possibilities:

- Allowing private insurances to cover the healthy, but let the government cover those who are sick,
- Make bills that force to cover sick people at a reasonable price,
- Public single payer insurance.

This is a discussion that I have not seen yet, and one that needs to take place in this country.

[antigop]

4. Why in the world should insurance companies get to cherry pick?

If you let the government cover those who are sick, then all you are doing is subsidizing corporate welfare for the insurance companies.

[Mass]

6. They should not, IMHO, but I am sure some plans would propose that.

[Cleita]

8. They are into it for profit. The only way they can do that is to

insure the healthy and drop the sick and redline those with pre-existing conditions, which is what they used to do. When they couldn't do that anymore, they raised the deductibles and premiums to the point that most businesses and individuals can't afford them hence a growing population of uninsured and underinsured.

If they are forced to cover everyone, and can't raise the premiums, then the state will have to pick up the tab by paying for their coverage. Either way it's a win, win for the insurance companies and HMOs. This is corporate welfare.

Also, did you know that most countries that have NHC are able to deliver quality health care per person for less than half of what we spend in this country because they have cut out the middle man, the corporate sponge that is focused on profits not delivering health care to all who need it?

[Selatius]

7. The reason why Arnold vetoed single-payer is because it threatened profit margins.

It threatened the profit margins of health insurance companies. It would've answered the question for people who do not qualify for "pre-existing conditions," people who are too poor to afford health insurance, and healthy people who for some reason decided to "take their chances" and not get health insurance in one blow.

[Cleita]

9. Of course, they are some of his major contributors. He gotta

dance with the beast that brung him, the health insurance industry.

[AX10]

10. And it will be another Demcrat who will have to clean up the mess.

[Cleita]

11. It's too bad we can't recall him, like the GOPs did Grey Davis.

[Cleita]

12. One last

:kick: because it's Monday.

[bobbolink]

13. I'm glad he's raising awareness about it, but .... it's weaker than I had hoped.

:(

Arnold's plan SUX, and I wish Krugman had been stronger in his objections!

People MUST be educated about the problems with INSURANCE!



ruh-roh....now I'm gonna be hounded by all the insurance types....

Thanks for posting this, Cleita!! :hi: