View Story | 318 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
You and I often disagree, but I have always respected you and your thoughts anyway. And so it's good to actually find common ground on you with this.
Of course, I think the best solution is universal single-payer care, getting insurance out of the process entirely, and I fault Obama for not backing it.
However, you are absolutely dead on in your criticism of the individual mandate. It is a terrible, disastrous plan, no matter who is offering it - and I find it utterly damning that the so-called progressive champion of the middle class, John Edwards, would have the fucking IRS garnish people's wages for not being a part of this system.
We can, and should, say more about Massachusetts. 200,000 uninsured is a large number for that state and suggests that their plan is a failure on its face. But it gets worse. What coverage people can afford, the minimum, comes with so little of health care actually covered that it is barely a step above junk insurance. For health insurance that actually would help someone the costs are quoted at around $4,000-$5,000, which is totally unacceptable.
Many throw around "subsidy" and "tax credit" and "public option" but these are fundamentally flawed lipstick on a pig. The public option has massive problems - it will not be able to compete on an open market with private insurance. Insurers will find ways to dump the sick onto the public option. That will drive up the costs of the public option, and that causes a fiscal crisis. Either premiums have to go up - making the public option uncompetitive - or a tax bailout has to happen, causing a serious political problem.
And a mandate does NOTHING to address the problems of insurers screwing over their policyholders by denying care and payment. Both Markos and his wife Elisa have had problems with this with Blue Cross. In September I wrote a diary that hit the top of the rec list about Blue Cross classifying a miscarriage as an "elective abortion" so as to get out of paying for it. Edwards' and Hillary's plan would not only do nothing to curb these horrific abuses, but would force people into this system.
There are many more problems with a mandate but I'll leave it there for now. Mandates are bad, bad, bad, bad public policy. It is a shame that good Kossacks feel the need to take leave of their senses and defend them just because their chosen candidate has offered mandates. Obama's plans are insufficient, but hey, at least he respects the basic dictum of medical care: first, do no harm.
Great job, Elise.
I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day Neither is California High Speed Rail
by eugene on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 05:38:42 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I'm SO glad we could agree on this! And so thoroughly! Wow!! :-)
I'm SO submitting this to Top Comments btw...not just because it's so rare that we agree, but because this comment is excellent. It really sums everything up very succinctly. And I'm glad you link to your diary on Blue Cross's antics...that was an absolutely unbelievable story!! And that's exactly right - people will be forced into this! Obama makes some attempts to address that and I think that shows just how carefully thought out his plan is.
In the end I think that Hillary just wants to be able to SAY that everyone is covered. Obama seriously wants to improve the entire system from top to bottom - and in the process he wants to cover everyone while he's at it. This is REAL reform.
Know the Facts about Barack Obama.
by Elise on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 05:49:15 PM PDT
Same with Edwards - he and Hillary believe that the problem is we have too many uninsured Americans. That's not the problem at all - the problem is that Americans aren't getting the health care they have a right to get, because of insurers, whether they have a policy or not.
by eugene on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 05:52:12 PM PDT
eugene and Elise just agreed.
My mind, it is blown.
;-)
"Not just with words, but with deeds." -- Barack Obama
by kath25 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 06:00:28 PM PDT
by Elise on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 06:13:39 PM PDT
Or solstice, for you rampant atheists. ;-)
by kath25 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 06:18:48 PM PDT
pretty rampant...er...rabid? Something like that :-)
by Elise on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 06:26:19 PM PDT
is no solution at all. All the MA system will accomplish is to increase the amount of money flowing into insurance company coffers.
I would rather see the insurance companies forced to compete with a fully funded single payer public health care system. Those who prefer private health care could continue to pay for the coverage of their choice out of their own pockets. Pretty simple.
Getting there....not so simple.
Our health care system needs a revolution, not a makeover.
by ovals49 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 07:52:23 PM PDT
We need to step outside corporate framing here. Competition won't solve this crisis (can anyone produce a case in which it HAS led to cheaper, better service, especially for health care?).
Yes, even if it's the public sector competing with the private sector. I've explained it below, but suffice it to say that this just won't work - insurers will find ways to dump the sick onto the public option to keep premiums low. This will lead to the costs of administering the public option to rise. Which means either a premium hike (defeating the purpose) or a tax bailout (leading to a political problem).
We cannot use the market or any of its tools - competition included - to achieve a progressive goal such as universal health care. We have to go outside the market - completely - and pay for universal care, on demand, free at the point of delivery, funded by taxes on everyone.
by eugene on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 09:33:24 PM PDT
We have to go outside the market - completely - and pay for universal care, on demand, free at the point of delivery, funded by taxes on everyone.
That's exactly what I meant to say. A fully funded single payer system available to all, paid for by our taxes, would pretty much eliminate the need for private coverage. "Free market" devotees would continue to be able to purchase the private insurance of their choice IN ADDITION to the coverage, they and everyone else, would already enjoy.
Kind of like Grover's drowning in bathtub analogy, only in reverse.
by ovals49 on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 02:14:59 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 318 comments