Skip to main content

View Diary: When Can We Expect Health Care Reform (Whoever Wins)? (369 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But, following Machiavelli's rule of reform.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jd in nyc, fladem, maracucho, neroden

    What about single payer under another name, i.e., "Medicare for All"? as has been proposed by a political insider like Lawrence O'Donnell.

    To me, I think we need to at least look at ways to take profit out of health care -- it wasn't that long ago that Blue Cross and I think Blue Shield were both non-profit companies. I don't know how you put the genie back in the bottle on this, but that seems like an important part of the puzzle. (Part of the reason that Kaiser, which I'm a lifelong member of, has less problems than the others is that it is still a non-profit corporation.)

    Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)

    by LABobsterofAnaheim on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:32:07 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think the barrier (0+ / 0-)

      is banning private health care spending, which a number of UHC countries (the UK and Germany, eg) do not do.

      It is important to understand that the Canadian system has a safety valve - the US system.  If the line is too long in Canada, Canadians often will go south and pay privately.  

      I actually think banning private health care spending would be challenged on due process grouns, and very well might be unconstitutional.

    •  Medicare for Everyone! (0+ / 0-)

      But we need to get rid of Medicare (Dis)Advantage and the role of the insurance companies in Medicare Part D.

      Medicare parts A and/or B need to be the model.

      Actually, we'd make huge progress if we just expanded Medicare part A to everyone: the medical costs it covers (catastrophic hospital/surgery stuff) are by far the most fearsome to most people.

      -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

      by neroden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:35:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Privatisation Trap (0+ / 0-)

      So Blue Cross/Blue Shield go private, then for-profit, then stop fulfilling their mission; NY establishes a new health fund (I can't remember its initials), now it's talking about going private -- rinse and repeat.

      Each privatisation gives a one-shot boost to the public treasury, while giving even more money to the managers -- and then causes the privatized company to stop fulfilling its purpose, necessitating the creation of a new public agency.  And then the rent-seekers try to privatize that one....

      Similar sorts of things happened with Conrail.  Government bailout, privatization, merger, now its successor in northern NY (CSX) is undermaintaining the Water Level Route -- which is of statewide importance -- to the point where there are state and federal investigations, and probably eventually there will be a new infusion of government money....

      Kudos to Kucinich for refusing to privatize the Cleveland (I think?) water system.  He stood for sense when it was unpopular, and was conclusively proved right within just a couple of years.

      Not to be doctrinnaire -- I'm all for privatizing naturally competitive operations, like when the government is running sheep farms or restaurants (which has happened in some countries).

      -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

      by neroden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:44:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (37)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Culture (30)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Media (29)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Spam (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site