Feingold calls for Universal Health Insurance.

[kpete]

Feingold calls for Universal Health Insurance.
by Eternal Hope
Mon Jul 24, 2006

While the Republicans are grandstanding and talking a good game about "moral values" and proposing gimmicks like the Flag Burning Amendment, Russ Feingold is all action. He is engaged in the business of the American people by introducing a pilot program designed to bring health insurance to all Americans.

The plan is the first in a series of proposals to address the domestic issues that his constituents care about and that the Republican leadership ignores. The difference between us and them is simple -- we're the ones who put the money in; they're the ones who take the money out.

Here are the facts on the plan:

Feingold's State-Based Health Care Reform Act:

--Authorizes funding for pilot projects so that a few states can ensure health care coverage to all their residents.

--Gives flexibility to the states to use their own approach to achieve health care coverage for all their residents.

--Instead of requiring states to follow a certain program, Feingold's bill gives states the flexibility to achieve expanded coverage through any system deemed appropriate by a Health Care Reform Task Force.

Overview of Project:

--The pilot programs would last for five years and would be funded through a grant application program overseen by the Health Care Reform Task Force established in the legislation.

--The Health Care Reform Task Force would evaluate state applications, select state projects, and oversee implementation of the states' proposals.

--Participating states will be required to submit an annual report to the Task Force detailing their progress.

--The Task Force will be a committee with members appointed by the Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General. The Task Force will be housed under Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Secretary of HHS will be a member of the Task Force.

--The bill will cost $32 billion over ten years and is fully paid for through offsets, making funding available right away and allowing the program to take effect immediately.

State Plan Requirements:

--Coverage must meet certain minimum standards and must include protections for low-income people.

--Once approved by the Task Force, a state will be required to provide some matching funds.

--States are expected to improve the efficiency of health care spending and work to lower health care costs.

Congressional Action:

--The Task Force will be responsible for submitting an evaluation of all pilot projects to Congress at the end of the initial five-year grant period.

--The recommendations will be based on states' experiences, and the bill requires congressional debate of these recommendations and findings.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/24/161123/291

[rodeodance]

1. at last--something of importance!--and needed.

[tridim]

2. Real domestic issues are winning issues.

Considering Republican domestic policy has been nonexistent for about 6 years. I also think the phrase, "Remember the Clinton years?" will be very effective.

[rfranklin]

3. Five years? I'll be broke and dead by then....

I just got billed $586 for a two-minute exam at the emergency room. That was just the M.D. There are hundreds of dollars more for all the other emergency room charges. And the new health insurance ("95% the same" says the company) doesn't cover shit!

[rodeodance]

7. fire year pilot program

[OzarkDem]

4. Looks like he's getting serious about it

The trick is to get states to devise plans that cover ALL residents.

Thank you Russ for taking a leadership role on a crucial issue.

[pinto]

5. Glad this is back on the table...good move Feingold. It'll be

interesting to see how this fares in committee and what the specifics are for the States.

[KittyWampus]

6. Seems vague & potentially contradictory & evasive. Feingold gives himself

tons of room to do back flips while running for the nomination.

Vague:

Feingold's bill gives states the flexibility to achieve expanded coverage through any system deemed appropriate by a Health Care Reform Task Force.


Contradictory:

Gives flexibility to the states to use their own approach to achieve health care coverage for all their residents

Coverage must meet certain minimum standards and must include protections for low-income people

Evasive:

Feingold calls for Universal Health Insurance

flexability to achieve expanded coverage

[rfranklin]

9. It's a joke...

but I ain't laughing.

[Bretttido]

28. I'll give you vague

But I dont see how those statements are contradictory or evasive.

[acmejack]

8. States like Texas will be flexible to efficiently cover as few people

as possible for as little cost as possible while meeting or falling short of the minimum acceptable standards. Yet another category we can be Fiftieth in, well perhaps fortyninth. Thank goodness for Mississippi...

[midnight]

10. Kpete is this going into effect in the near future or do we have

to put committees together and have all kinds of people tell us that it won't work. I would love this to be a reality. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

[bobbolink]

14. It will be a reality when we all demand it. Not one minute sooner.

[me b zola]

11. This is a great start for healing what ails the US.

more from link:

~snip~
This will not happen overnight; this is a process that will not end with the passage of the bill that comes out of the pilot program. The goal is to get to a state where we continuously bring down the numbers of uninsured until we reach zero.

The nature of Liberalism is that we do not have to accept the Conservative status quo, where insurance companies can gouge patients and we depend on the market to provide health insurance. We cannot place a price on human life.

~snip~
The other choice is to recognize this as a process with the end goal as universal health insurace for all Americans. Once we reach that point, we can decide where we go from there.

Thank you Senator Feingold.

[BlueJac]

12. Sounds good.........

Every state on their own, shit with that many minds working on the problems we might just get somewhere.

[mom cat]

13. Will this be a single payor program or just a different way of

funneling money to the insurance companies?

[DefenseLawyer]

19. VERY good question

and an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in the discussion.

[mom cat]

20. I think we need to be careful on what we support.

[bobbolink]

15. I was encouraged to see Feingold advocating for health care.

Even though I winced at the use of the word "insurance". That is what's wrong with health care in the U.S., and nothing can save health care if insurance is saved.

Then I see that he's not really advocating universal, single payer... just all kinds of experiments. sigh.... More time wasted, and more deaths from lack of good care while the states fiddle around, trying to protect the corporations.

We don't need to experiment -- the solution is H.R. 676, and we all need to make sure it is implimented, if we truly want the U.S. to have the health care the rest of the industrialized nations (and not a few 3rd world countries!) have.

Check up on your representatives. If they haven't signed on to H.R.676, start badgering them to do so, and get your friends, neighbors and local Dem party to push for it.

We owe it to ourselves!

[TripeOmatic]

26. As long as 'private' insurance companies are in it for the profit

there's no chance that the money that should, in fact, go towards more and better health care, will, in fact, go towards more and better health care. There are some things that an intermediary industry, which contributes nothing to the actual function or delivery of health care, can't and won't ever do and that is; add to the value received for the dollars spent on health care itself. These companies don't contribute to the well-being of the citizens. They profit from the need. That's their only reason for being in business. At the end of the day we need to ask ourselves whether a health care system administered by the government (with the attendant inefficiencies often inherent in government-run programs) can do a more efficient and more equitable job of delivering value for the dollars spent on the system than the current rip-off the insurance industry (with it's stranglehold on legislation and the resulting immunity from regulation) is foisting on the population of our country. I'm willing to bet that cutting out the middle-man insurance industry will improve the overall health care system in the US. There are, in fact, some things which are better done by government besides waging illegal wars we can't 'win'.

[bobbolink]

27. "There are some things better done by government.."

You are so right! One of our (the left, or Dems) first mistakes was letting the RW vilify government. Oversight? You betcha! Clean up any and all "dirty tricks"? Obviously! But, the government has a necessary place in the lives of it's citizens.

ONe thing I like to throw at people who want to yell "socialized" medicine because they believe that alll government is evil, is to suggest they do away with their police and fire departments, because that is socialism.

I hardly ever hear anything after that except a sharp intake of breath.

Especially here in the West, where wildfires are such an ever-present danger to us all!

[TripeOmatic]

31. "suggest they do away with their police and fire departments"

That's so funny to me because I tried for several months to figure out WT-Hell the posts on the Liberty-Tree site were about since, every time someone failed to trash any and all governmental functions, they were invariably called 'socialist(ic)' as if any society could be perfectly bereft of the 'social' aspect that human 'societies' depend on to function better than a globe of 'individuals'. It took me a while to figure out that the site catered to and encouraged 'radical Libertarianism'. These people really want to do away with any and all of the progress made during and after the stock market crash of 1929 - i.e. 'social' security, and any other semblance of interference with perfect 'laissez-faire' as if they had no sense of history with respect to the monopolistic excesses of the late 1800s. I think the term is 'Darwinian' social order; eat or be eaten - LOL. I actually tried the 'police and emergency services' argument several times but they seem to consistently ignore that sort of rationale as if these services were a gift from God.

For a taste, do a search on
liberty-tree socialist

or - check out the "I have no duties to anyone" rants by an E. Archer on the following search (frightening)
liberty-tree archer

[bobbolink]

35. IMO, libertarians are hopeless.

REally, there is so much anger and disdain for fellow humans just beneath the surface of so many libertarians, that I don't waste my time. There are some who just aren't moveable, and it's not worth putting energy into it.

For all but the social darwinists, though, here in the west, the issue of "privatizing" police, but especially fire fighters does the trick.

I can't speak for other areas of the country that aren't so beleagured by fire.

I really wish those social darwinists would all find an island somewhere, or better yet, a planet where they can all be just as ruggedly individualistic as they desire.

:evilgrin:

[bobbolink]

30. Welcome to D.U., Tripe!

Sorry, it took me a while to see that you're a new poster.

:hi: :toast:

[TripeOmatic]

32. LOL - New, maybe - novel, not so much - thanks though - n/t

[Lifelong Protester]

16. We have to get the dialogue moving

Maybe this isn't the comprehensive solution (as in, all the details aren't worked out yet) but we must start talking. Every time I write Russ, as he is one of my senators, I always add the line "and please get busy on universal health care". He says that he and his staff are surprised at how FEW mentions they get of some things, especially this issue.

bobbolink, who said on this thread that we will 'get it when we demand it' is 100% correct.

Let's take care of americans, please, and quit 'trying to bring democracy' anywhere else. Tell Condi to stay home. Hell, her one trip today to Beirut, which accomplished nothing, could pay for YEARS of my health coverage.

[DYouth]

17. Not single payer - BAD

If we're going to have democracy in this nation, we need to know what we're getting into always. No lesser of the two evils. And this plan seems like its still running away from the best solution because it's too hard to challenge "Big Pharma" and the insurance industry.

Although about 80 congressmen have signed onto a bill that would create single payer healthcare, if I'm not mistaken. Why isn't feingold as brave as them?

[Cleita]

22. I agree. Private health insurance has not proved to be

a good solution as the focus is on delivering profits, not necessary health care and fair reimbursement to the health care providers. Only universal single payer, in other countries, has proved to do this as well as keeping the cost of health care down.

I have proposed that what we should do is offer an improved Medicare plan to all subscribers for health care not already covered by Medicare like employers and uninsured individuals not qualifying under other government programs. This is a way to get the insurance companies out of the business without the kicking, screaming and lobbying to survive.

Statistically, it appears that the government could deliver Medicare coverage for half of what the private insurance industry can, undercutting them. It's free market like the conservatives like and once the for profit, private health care providing companies are out of the equation, we can then extend the coverage to everyone in a true universal payer way. The insurance companies can go back to their traditional roles as insuring against disaster, something their actuaries figure out very carefully to make sure the disasters are unlikely.

[lovuian]

18. This is an election Issue that can get Feingold elected

and its doable!!!

[ComerPerro]

21. Uh Oh. I don't like the decision being left to the states

because I live in Kansas.

This fucked state will probably make it a requirement that you join a creationist church before being eligible to receive health care.


In all seriousness, though, its nice to see a REAL issue being discussed.

[Cleita]

23. The Canadian system started in one province, I believe

Saskatchewan (sp.?) and spread. If we have to do this by states, it might not be so bad if one of the states adopts a single payer plan. It could then spread, like it did in Canada. In the meantime you guys need to be vigilant as to what the provisions are to receive it.

[IronLionZion]

25. The Canadian system is administered by each province

And yes Tommy Douglas, the premier of Saskatchewan, was the founder.

[bobbolink]

33. True, but that province was SINGLE PAYER, and not

"experiemental"

I'm very disappointed in Russ about this.

sigh....

[IronLionZion]

24. It's a start, but it's not universal health care

It looks like it will assist the states like Tennessee, Minnesota, Vermont, Mass. and so on that are seriously trying to provide health insurance for all.

The KOS article is right that we can't just pass national universal health care and expect the problem to be solved so easily. There are many local issues and situations that need to be addressed.

[mikelewis]

29. Absolutely, that's why I like Feingold's approach in this proposal...

He's not laying out a plan for Universal Health Care right now. He's releasing some funding for limited applications that will report to a task force which will study how it can best be implemented when we do decide to make this commitment. I applaud his proposal because it will immediately alleviate the suffering of millions and does not increase our debt.

[bobbolink]

34. Starting with the wrong thing is more than just a waste of time and effort

and money.

It won't accomplish the goal at all (It can't!!), so it will set back the effort when people see that it fails.

There is absolutely NO reason not to go for single payer.... over half the population is for it, big corporations like GM are for it, and these little bits like this are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Please, read the info on the dr's site, and see that we don't have to settle for less, and that, in fact, if we do, we'll be even worse off.