Richardson and Edwards have articulated the best healthcare plan in my opinion so far

[still_one]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3279.html


They have given SPECIFICS, and want EVERYONE to be insured. They have estimated costs, and where the money will come from

I was most impressed by Edwards answer, and he isn't even my first choice, but I tell you, I am shifting toward him more every day

[saltpoint]

1. I'd be happier under Edwards' plan, but our Democrats have all shone

like the sun over the GOP potential nominees.

The bluer 2008 is the better national health care becomes, IMO.

[still_one]

2. no question about it, if we don't win in 2008, there will still be 40+ million uninsured

Besides Iraq, this MUST be one of the top issues for Democrats in 2008

[saltpoint]

5. I couldn't agree more, still_one. That is absolutely right.

[PSPS]

3. Abolish the health insurance industry. That's the only real solution.

Why compel, as these plans would do, people to purchase private insurance, even with a subsidy, when we already know that at least 30% of the premium goes toward funding the obscene and vulgar billionaire lifestyle of insurance CEO's? This is just more institutionalized "welfare-for-billionaires."

I think it's Edwards' plan that gives people the choice to enroll in "Medicare Plus", which is the direction the whole country should go. But without universal participation, you lose the economy of "pooled risk," which is how health insurance used to work. If you make the best plan just a "choice," you'll end up with only those unable to get private insurance signing on, making it too expensive.

The taxes required to provide universal single-payer healthcare for all through Medicare is less than the premiums being paid today to private insurance companies. In other words, there would be a net savings to everyone by scuttling the private health insurance industry.

[msongs]

7. HMOs are corporate thieves preying on sick people nt

[nannah]

8. you are so right!

it is the health insurance industry that is a big part of this problem. the process of paying for health care should be as simple and easily administered as possible; many state and federal agencies are known for efficient administration of health care costs (no sarcasm...forbes has looked at administrative costs among private and public sector and public entities had excellent records).

i certainly agree with other posters on this topic that if the dems unified behind single payer health care they would sweep the 2008 election because everyone is struggling with the health care issue. and not just the uninsured. since most health insurance continues to be tied to employment, many of those who are healthy, working, and covered today will lose their health insurance if they become really ill and lose their employment.

an element of the insured and uninsured numbers that i have not seen broken out relates to the reality that most who are insured are relatively young, healthy and working, making minimal demands on their insurers; we know that because they are able to sustain employment with benefits. among the numbers of uninsured are all of those who became unable to work because of illness and ultimately lost the insurance benefits that they were paying for through their work. this works well for the insurance industry because they lose the liability of people who are too ill to work. in essence, insurance through employment allows the insurance industry to cream the healthiest people in the economy for their profits while extricating themselves from obligation when their customers become ill and can't work.

[Rosemary2205]

4. I like Richardson's plan to get veterans out of the VA and in private sector.

The VA sucks. It's always going to suck. Period.

[skipos]

9. Agreed. I have family members who work at VAs

and they feel the treatment is ridiculously weak.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Not single payer public health insurance? Not a viable plan.

Democratic candidates pushing private health insurance schemes with mandates and assorted subsidies are pushing corrupt HealthCo-friendly plans that will bake in huge profits for the private health insurance industry. Those profits will simply be subracted from the actual health care services delivered and will result in less health care services deilvered at a higher cost than comparable public universal single payer systems like the rest of the modern industrial democracies all have.

No thanks.

[Solon]

10. I think Kucinich and Conyers has the right idea...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.676:

Granted the Bill itself was introduced 2 years ago, but they could reintroduce it to the new Congress, and the chances of it passing will increase each and every year.

[still_one]

11. The link seems to be a blank page that you gave? Did they remove it?

[Solon]

12. I should double check the URLs...

To be honest, I can't contact the library of Congress website at all at the moment, it seems to be down. I just woke up and the Internet is slow and unreliable at the moment, but I know what the problem is, there is not supposed to be a space between that colon at the end of the URL. You can either go to my blog link in my sig or Kucinich's website, here:

http://kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php

Both have links that go to the bill.

[Lasher]

13. Good morning!

Yep, that's the single provider 'Medicare for all' plan. That's the good one. Edwards' plan allows the insurance companies to continue playing their counterproductive role of exacting tribute from us all.

[Solon]

14. One thing I like about the Conyers-Kucinich plan...

Is that it doesn't LOCK out the Insurance companies, but rather gives them a choice, become non-profits or die. I like that idea, and it allows for a transition between for profit insurance companies and universal, public, health care. Eventually they will become non-profits, and then they will probably end up as "public corporations" similar to the postal service.

[Lasher]

16. Yep, that would be like Medicare Part B sousources administrative work today

That would be fine.

[Solon]

17. No need to outlaw insurance companies if you can simply outcompete them...

No insurance companies can offer the range of coverage, or the efficiency and inexpensive solutions as the Federal or even State governments.

[Lasher]

18. But that's only if you can count on an apples to apples comparison

There's so much money flying around that the single payer alternative isn't getting a fair chance. Medicare Part D is a good example of that. Big money lobbyists and stink tanks jump in to make it so confusing that most people glaze over and start thinking about Anna Nicole and Nascar.

I don't want to outlaw insurance companies. I want to strictly limit their involvement to healthcare plus supplements that would kick in where universal healthcare would leave off. I would want these enhancements to be limited to treatments like cosmetic surgery. Special considerations like a gurantee of a private room could also come under that.

But other than that I don't want them involved at all except to provide an outsourcing alternative for clerical work.

We can improve healthcare for everybody at no net additional expense if we have the courage to embrace the whole spectrum. Employer provided healthcare, for example, could be folded into the national healthcare umbrella by eliminating tax credits that have been extended to corporations because they have been giving employees benefits.

[Solon]

19. Oh I agree...

Just saying that, for most folks, if there was a choice between a private insurance company, with co-pays, large premiums, etc. OR they could choose the government program that covers EVERYTHING except purely cosmetic procedures, without co-pays, a small or no increase in taxes, etc., I would think that most folks would choose the government program. If single payer was given a fair shake, then I think the result would be the same as you are advocating, granted, I'm not saying I'm against what you are saying, I agree with it 100%, I'm just illustrating how much more efficient a government run system would be.

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. Force Americans to buy for-profit insurance? Abolish the VA because it's underfunded?

I bet you folks supported abolishing welfare and public housing, too.

Is social issies (gay marriage, gun control, religion) all it takes to
pretend to be liberal these days?

Didn't anyone take economics and understand the idiocy of mandating
customer demand for a product whose profit margin is arbitrarily
regulated, and ultimately based on whatever the market will bear?
A product which, like a natural resource, has static industry-wide
costs and efficiencies? National FOR-PROFIT healthcare -- mnandated
-- would be an abomination.

I would instantly disobey such a law rather than be screwed out of my money by these fascist pigs. Edwards, Hillary and the Masscare assholes have betrayed us, just as Massachusetts ended rent control and they are trying to export that innovation, too.

What do you think would happen if the government mandated gasoline consumption? Mandated investment of your social security money in a list of approved publically traded companies? Mandated the purchase of milk?

[LSK]

20. why not medicare for all?

:shrug:

[kath]

21. People don't need INSURANCE, dammit. What they need is HEALTH CARE.

SINGLE PAYER health care.
Eliminate the blood-sucking, parasitic insurance companies from our health care system. They suck out approx THIRTY-THREE percent of health care dollars!! - what a fokkin' waste.