Skip to main content

View Diary: This is why we must pull their coverage (293 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the difference between single payer as a mandate (6+ / 0-)

    and clinton's mandates is that single payer will actually work.

    which doesn't excuse obama's apparent fantasy that we can solve our fundamental health care problems with a system that doesn't force people to spend a minimum fraction of their income to finance a guaranteed health benefit.

    i wish more people actually understood how markets work at the level of the individual decision-maker, and how that interrelates with macro-economic decisions. if we forced everyone to buy healthcare, via payroll deductions and unearned-income taxes, the prices of everything else those people buy would necessarily fall, since their available income would fall. the freedom to not buy health insurance is simply the "freedom" to be forced to choose between food and health insurance. it's a sort of liberty that can be admired only by libertarians (who favor "liberty" as a curious abstraction, focused primarily on the restricting of most people's liberty to wander across particular bits of land, without regard to actual human wellbeing).

    I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

    by UntimelyRippd on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:06:35 AM PST

    •  I think it just has to be framed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      howd, Predictor

      as single payer and as a savings to both employers and employees. Business SAVES paying premiums and employees SAVE by not having to pay for part of their insurance coverage by paycheck deductions, which is like a tax anyway.

      It's really win/win. If people looked at how much health care was costing them in bits and pieces here and there they'd see single payer is cheaper for most people.

      •  Yes! (0+ / 0-)

        The public needs to be made aware that our taxes already pay for half of the medical care in the US through Medicare, Medicaid, etc.  Employer paid insurance is simply a tax also as it precludes salary or wages we would be earning if the companies didn't pay for the insurance, plus as you stated the paycheck deductions.  For example, my old company paid $650 a month for our insurance plan and I contributed $250 for a total of $900 per month or $10,800 per year! This is a tax and a pretty high one.  Even if I was making $100k it would be 10% of my income.  

        All men want to be rich. Rich men want to be king. And the king ain't satisfied till he rules everything. Springsteen

        by howd on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:13:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  One step at a time. (0+ / 0-)

      I agree single-payer would be best. But a majority of Americans don't agree with you and me. It can't get done politically -- yet.

      The tactical genius of Obama's plan is that it deflates the political opposition to expanded coverage. Anybody who doesn't want to pay for coverage, doesn't have to -- so they have no reason to base their vote on their opposition to healthcare reform.

      BUT -- of course, if Obama's plan becomes law, then before long we'll see adverse selection at work. The young and healthy will opt out, rates will go up for the remaining insured; then the almost-young and almost-healthy will opt out, and rates will go up again; repeat in death spiral. The only shot at a positive long-term outcome -- and I assume Obama knows this, he's pretty damn smart -- is that when rates go up, people will demand increased subsidies, which will come out of tax revenue, much of which will come out of the pockets of the young and healthy. At that point the young and healthy may decide that if they have to pay for the healthcare system one way or another, they might as well actually have healthcare -- at which point truly universal coverage, perhaps via single-payer, will be politically viable.

      I believe it was Churchill who said America can always be counted upon to do the right thing, after exhausting every other alternative.

      -4.25, -4.87 "If the truth were self-evident, there would be no need for eloquence." -- Cicero

      by HeyMikey on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:33:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  which majority is that? (0+ / 0-)

        the majority that sits in congress, or the majority that elects them (such as it is).

        if we take an approach that is TOO incremental, we'll be working on this for a hundred years. and i'm not sure i can face the prospect of reform via a catastrophic spiral -- especially with the accompanying nightmare of the unfortunate few among those opt-outers, who get cancer or get hit by a bus or whatever.

        in any case, it isn't at all clear to me that we couldn't get "pedicare" (medicare for minors) done very quickly, with a determined president and substantial Dem majority. and from there, in one more generation we'd close the gap in the middle.

        I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

        by UntimelyRippd on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:46:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hope so! (0+ / 0-)

          I think "pedicare" would be a great place to start. And it wouldn't be long before people got pissed off about losing healthcare at age 18.

          There is some possibility we'll have 60 Democrats in the Senate next year. If so, single-payer could be within reach.

          -4.25, -4.87 "If the truth were self-evident, there would be no need for eloquence." -- Cicero

          by HeyMikey on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:56:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site