John Nichols: Give States an Option to Lead on Single-Payer

[RufusTFirefly]

Give States an Option to Lead on Single-Payer

by John Nichols
...
The compromises of a weak "public option" or less are insufficient to the point of being laughable, and potentially more costly than the current monstrosity.

So we will get to single-payer.
...
Under (Rep. Tammy) Baldwin's plan, a progressive state such as Oregon or Vermont could develop a "Medicare for all" program within its borders. At the same time, a more traditionally conservative state such as Mississippi or Alabama could muck around with so-called "medical-savings accounts" and other gimmicks developed by the insurance industry and its political mouthpieces.
...
Washington may not give us real reform this year. But it should at least give progressive states a chance to move in the right direction.

More at Common Dreams

[dhpgetsit]

1. This is how single-payer will happen.

+1

[MarjorieG]

2. Seems the best way to start it, going w Kucinch amendment to not prevent them.

[bemildred]

3. IIRC California passed single payer a couple years back, and Ahnuld promptly vetoed it. nt

[RufusTFirefly]

4. Correct. Happened almost a year ago. Here's State Sen. Kuehl's response

Senator Kuehl's Statement on Schwarzenegger's Veto of Universal Health Care: Innacuracies of Veto Message Cited

By State Senator Sheila Kuehl

(Editor's Note: State Senator Sheila Kuehl issued this statement after Governor Schwarzenegger's veto of the bill she authored, SB 840. This measure would have insured every Californian with comprehensive healthcare benefits, guarantee the right of patients to choose their own doctors, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and control healthcare costs.)

The reasoning behind the Governor’s opposition to universal health care is truly innacurate, which is no surprise considering he has refused to meet to discuss the issue. If the Governor took a thoughtful look at SB 840 he would see that delivery of health care would remain exactly as it now is, public or private. The main difference is that under SB 840 every Californian would have been able to choose their own doctors and hospitals and there would have been no unreimbursed care.

The Governor makes a huge mistake in saying the bill would cost new money or there would be new taxes and no help to affordability. Such a statement shows that he has not read the bill, doesn’t understand the bill, or is being completely misdirected by his handlers.

In truth, premiums to be paid by businesses and individuals under SB 840 would have taken the place of all premiums, co-pays and deductibles we now pay, saving every person who now pays for healthcare significant money. In addition, where there are no cost controls at all now, and enormous administrative overhead and profit for insurance companies, there would have been a transparent system that actually would succeed in making healthcare coverage affordable in California.

...

It was a mistake for the Governor to reject the only concrete plan now on the table to reform healthcare coverage. In his statement, the Governor says that he cares about ‘affordability,’ but SB 840 would make healthcare coverage affordable, while preserving quality. SB 840 would have protected, by law, the right of consumers to choose their own doctor, making healthcare more competitive than ever.

Full statement

[bemildred]

5. The threat of a good example to the corrupt status quo cannot be overestimated. nt

[Daveparts still]

6. It won't work that way

“In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up or else all go down as one people.”
(Franklin Delano Roosevelt)

[AdHocSolver]

7. Single payer health insurance in Canada started in the province of Saskatchewan. n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

8. Yes. That's at the core of the article's premise

I simply left out that paragraph because I only had four I could include.