Blue state universal health care?

[Strawman]

I think this needs to happen. Assuming that it is possible in states with Democratic legislative majorities and Democratic governors This is what I'm wondering:

What are the other barriers? Obviously state governments' finances are in rough shape due to the lack of federal help, but I gotta think that some combination of reprioritization and tax increases on corporations and the well to do could finance this. Additionally, if you had a coordinated effort among multiple states, that would increase the negotiation power of the states vs. drug companies, etc.. Also it would spread the risk amoping a larger pool of enrollees.

Something's gotta give here. If we're going to stick with a corporate based health care system, then we need to legally require employers to provide basic health care to all employees. If not, we need to look at government sponsored health care. If we stay on the same course, we're just going to see more and more people without coverage as companies claim they can't afford it. It's either government's problem, corporate America's problem, or each individual's problem. The Republicans want it to be each individual's problem. That's a big problem for each individual to take on, and it's a system only the most extreme laissez-faire ideologues would want to find themselves in personally. And it's stupid to do it that way because individuals have zero leverage vs. health care providers in such a system. The Democrats seem undecided between whether it's government's problem or corporate America's problem. We need a coherent alternative to the status quo. Maybe a coordianted Democratic effort by a federation of states provides the best way to present a workable, coherent alternative.

[endarkenment]

1. I think it is a great idea too but..

here is my prediction: a republican congress/executive/judiciary would go after this on all fronts. They are already trying to supress interstate environmental compacts, and I think they would in a similar fashion go after UHC. That said, it is a great idea and it is workable, especially if we get the NE, rust belt, and west coast states in on it.

[adigal]

2. NY state supposedly has a 2 billion dollar surplus

I think they should put it into health care rather than tax cuts. Will it happen?? Not until Pataki goes away.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. The GOP also controls one house of the legislature in NY

[SmokingJacket]

20. Or at the very least, infrastructure.

Libraries are struggling for funds, roads and bridges are falling apart, public transportation is hurting... and Pataki wants to give a tax cut to the wealthy. WTF?

[YOY]

3. The mountains to overcome are so many it is almost impossible

at least on the State level.

You would be going up against 3 huge money making and money taking operations...4 actually.

1. The insurance companies...our favorite parasites doing the job that the governments is supposed to do (but only if you can pay.) Lots of money and they love making more.

2. The hospitals themselves...they have things to the point where that can make mucho dinero just by pushing unnecessary treatment and evaluations (once again though, only if you can pay.) They like making money too (and getting kickbacks from Big Pharma.)

3. The Big Pharma Cos love to have the doctors and insurance companies just where and how they can manipulate them. You know they love making money.

4. Most people (the public) thinks this is the way to do things. They do not perceive Heath as a basic human right. Convince them and the battle can actually start...

The first 3 have money...they like the system b/c they are getting rich off of it. They have money for lobbyists and can always argue that they provide much needed jobs. The fourth is ignorant to the way things could be.

These companies and organizations are so well entrenched in the system that it just seems to be a loosing battle everywhere you look. I have no idea where you could even start to change the system as they have the legal power

[endarkenment]

5. There is actually no legal barrier to a state mandating health coverage.

Sure healthco would fight it - but that is why it could in fact succeed legislatively in liberal/progressive blue states. And your point #4 is wrong - every time the question is asked a vast majority of people state that UHC is the way to go. The fact that major party candidates refuse to follow the lead of the people here is indicative of the level of corruption at the federal level in both parties.

[YOY]

7. I'm thinking of my parents' midwestern crowd's opinion for #4

They've repeated it to me several times. I still think that the majority public is sadly misinformed. Although I'd like to believe what you are saying.

[Strawman]

9. I think the only way to overcome this is to do it and do it right

There is a risk here. If it were attempted and the benefits weren't as good or if there were alot of red tape, waiting lists, people would say thinks like "I have a relative there and he/she had to wait nine months to go see the doctor for a test."

The skeptic in me says that more of these kind of people are going to have to lose their health care or have it significantly worsened before change becomes politically feasible. That day will come, and it's sad that it will probably have to go down that way. The tipping point is when more people know someone who has been screwed over by a lack of health care than those with "horror stories" about someone they know with a relative in Canada.

When the Republicans are eventually forced to go along with this, they're going to shit it up. If Dems can do it welll in the states, I think we can have a better model. I think it's at least worth the effort and the political feasibility is best in blue states acting together.

Right now, I personally have wonderful health insurance, but over 40 million Americans can't even go see a doctor. If they're worried about something they can't afford to go check it out like I can. So they walk around with undetected cancer that might be treatable in the early stages and all kind of other shit. That's wrong. And if you have to sell it from a selfish standpoint, you don't have to be Nostradamus to see the writing on the wall for people with generous employer provided health insurance like me. That's going to go bye bye. We're at the threshold of GM saying they can't afford it anymore. If is saying they GM can't afford it, how many employers will?

[YOY]

11. Right now I don't have medical insurance

and my wife just found out we're expecting. (My employer says they will help but that remains to be seen...later this week we will discuss things.)

I would (pardon my pun) sell a kidney for some decent insurance...

[Strawman]

16. See. That's what I'm talking about

I actually don't doubt that the thought has at least crossed your mind of actually selling your kidney to afford health care. That's not right. It's a national disgrace that working people have to worry about things like affording the costs of adequate prenatal care.

I think we'll never be able to change public opinion as long as our leaders say "No we just can't do it. Nobody wants this. It's not worth the risk." It is worth the risk. If we can't do this in states where we control the executive and legislative branches, where can we do it?

This is the richest country in the world. You and your wife shouldn't have to worry about this.

BTW... Congrats!

[YOY]

17. It is supposed to be a joyous moment

I am happy for us...but in the wealthiest country in the world two well educated peopel have are scared at the thought of having their first child due to the costs.

These neocon asswipes wonder why we hate them...

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. The public likes the idea of UHC in principle, but

that sentiment tends to change once the details of the plan is presented. Look at what happened in 1994 with Clinton's health care plan. Once there was a concrete plan in place, it was easy for opponents to pick it apart.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. But Clinton's plan wasn't really UHC--it was too complicated and

left too much power in the hands of the insurance companies.

The presentation of Clinton's plan was the first time I ever heard the phrase "managed care." What a success that turned out to be! Insurance company clerks with no medical background, just a chart, get to tell doctors whether procedures are "medically necessary" or not.

Even a non-generous UHC plan like that in Japan (available on a sliding scale to anyone without private insurance, 30% co-pays for most medical treatment, free treatment for chronic or catastrophic conditions) would be a vast improvement over the mess we have now.

[endarkenment]

15. The Clintons presented nothing like UHC.

They presented a complicated corrupt mess that deserved to die. Rather than UHC it was corporate welfare for healthco posing as UHC.

Here is a plan that people would support: extend medicare to everyone and add a real perscription drug benefit unlike that pos that bush foisted on senior citizens.

[Strawman]

18. So what? Do nothing?

I understand that your argument is empirically valid. You're right. But what's the point of any of this then? Why do we even care if Dems get elected if they can't do something as basic as this? Maybe that's exactly why so many working people who stay home on election day, don't care. They don't have to pass this through a referendum. If they have a legislative majority and control of the Governors office they should be able to do this. And if they can act together in multiple states, it would be best. Nationally, it would show that the Democrats can govern and deliver something meaningful to the public.

Even if the initial plan isn't single payer. Even if it leave employer based coverage in tact for those who have it to minimize the scare tactics' effectiveness. Do something that gets everyone in the system so that they can go see a doctor for regular preventive visits and when they are sick without having to go broke to qualify for Medicaid first.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. There was an attempt to pass a universal health care initiative in Oregon

a few years ago, and it received only 28% of the vote. Here's why:

1) The opponents had far more money than the advocates, and their line was that the state would be flooded with indigent people looking for a "handout at taxpayers' expense." The fact that the proposed law had no residence requirement made this a persuasive argument, even to some friends of mine who supported universal health care in principle.

I argued that, yes, the measure was probably doomed but that voting for it by a near-majority (ca. 45%) would send a signal to the state legislature. Instead, opponents of universal health care crowed about the 28% figure and said that it "proved" that Oregonians were satisfied with the current system.

2) The unions refused to get behind the initiative, because they thought that the proposal was less generous than their current union benefits. (Of course, they didn't stop to think about all the non-union people who have no health care or about their own former members who have lost their jobs.)

[zalinda]

10. I remember an interview broadcast with some sort

of person involved with this. It sounded like a well thought out plan. They did a large study and assigned values to various medical problems and the costs. The plan was to cover the top medical problems, with a sliding scale for the less common ones, I think. It seemed like a very doable and logical solution.

zalinda

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. That's something different, the Oregon Health Plan, which is

what Oregon did with its Medicaid money.

It was devised by then-Governor John Kitzhaber, who is a physician, worked quite well, although there were controversies when, for example, a cihld who needed a transplant could not be covered because his type of transplant was too far down the list.

Like other Medicaid, the Oregon Health Plan is not universal health care. In fact, the income requirements were set so low that I wondered how a person could even stay alive, much less healthy, with so little money. The street kids I used to work with mostly qualified for it, but a lot of the working poor did not.

[Greyhound]

13. The insurance masters dropped over $100 Mill to defeat prop 186 in CA

with that much spent the sheeple will vote any way their told to. :banghead:

[Strawman]

19. That's a referendum

They don't need that in states where they have legislative majorities and the governors office. I understand that there are other kinds of referenda every two years called elections. But sometimes you gotta just do the right thing. Even if the proposal left employer sponsored benefits in tact and just focused on getting everyone covered. If something like that could be accomplished, it would be worth taking the hit. Social benefits are difficult to take away once in place even thougyh they are difficult to put in place.

I'll bet the unions would be less opposed now. If not wait a couple more years after Delphi and then GM and then everyone else cuts their benefits. Then I'll be they'll be singing a different tune.

[SmokingJacket]

21. Many states are already providing health insurance to children

and one state -- Illinois? -- is doing it universally. A certain amount of infrastructure is already in place. But states are short of funds at the moment. It ought to be a priority if that changes, for sure.