A health-care policy parallel, and a thought-experiment

[Davis_X_Machina]

There are health-care reform proposals out there, clearly superior to the House bill, and to whatever emerges from the Senate, or from conference committee.

They didn't get out of House committee, for example, be it Ways and Means, or Education and Labor, or Energy and Commerce because they didn't have the votes. That's just a fact.

What do we do re health care while we wait to get the votes?

There's an interesting parallel. We've been here before as a country, about to create a major new social provision.

Thought Experiment.

When Social Security was brought in in '36, it excluded agricultural workers and domestics. They weren't added till '55. (The 1955 version would not have passed in '36, frankly, because those domestics and agricultural workers were disproportionately black and Latino.)

In the intervening 19 years a large number of people grew old, but not in poverty. Death benefits got paid, and survivor's benefits got paid. A lot of misery and suffering was averted.

But the '36 bill was a bad bill.

You're a legislator in '36. The SS bill that became law comes up for your vote. Do you vote it up or down?

(Note there is no third vote. This is a bill.)

[redqueen]

1. I'd vote it up. (nt)

[TexasObserver]

2. Get something passed. It's a fundamental rule of legislating.

The hard part is getting something new in place. Getting it modified in the future is easier than starting from scratch.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Good question and good example. n/t

[ipaint]

4. What was the equivalent back then regarding soc. sec.

of the for profit health insurance corps today? If there was none of course I would have voted yes.

If for profit corporations were involved in both making money on mandated soc. sec. payments and allowed to mete out benefits we wouldn't have a social security program today.

Had that been the case back then I would vote no. Luckily, it was not, which should be a lessoned learned.

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. You could save for retirement with a bank...or a mattress....

...and buy an annuity, or buy life insurance with or without cash value.

You could also have, if you were lucky, a pension via your employer.

In other words, the analogy holds.

[ipaint]

6. No it doesn't

Those for profit businesses weren't part of the social security program. There was no mandate to pay a for profit corp for social security benefits.

They weren't stupid back then like we are today. That president knew involving for profit businesses in a government program with the goal of guaranteeing benefits to the elderly would be a disaster.

Same as this health reform will be except we have the advantage of seeing the failure first hand in mass. and every other state that has attempted it, in addition to seeing around the world what actually does work. We have no excuse.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Did you vote? n.t

[ipaint]

8. Why

[redqueen]

9. Kick.

I'm interested to see more discussion about this.

[mdmc]

10. kick