Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How Dennis Kucinich May Save the Health Reform Battle

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 09:11 AM
Original message
How Dennis Kucinich May Save the Health Reform Battle
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141404/how_dennis_kucinich_may_save_the_health_reform_battle

<edit>

But it also fails some of the basic criteria that most progressives have long said is a red-line that can't be crossed. First and foremost, it doesn't have a public option that can compete with private insurers and result in significant cost savings.

It has a public plan in which -- as far as the statute goes (it can be expanded in 2015 but there's no mandate to do so) -- only 9-10 million people will be eligible to enroll by 2019. Similarly, the publicly-administered exchanges are projected to cover about 30 million by that year. (These relatively small insurance pools will be able to bargain in concert with Medicare to some degree, so their power will be magnified, but still...)

That greatly limits the potential for cost containment. What it does is bend the curve of projected cost growth downwards, and cover about 2/3 of the uninsured. But we'll still have 3-6 % of the population uninsured and being treated at the ER. And while bending the upward curve down a few notches is a very good thing, it doesn't get us where we want to go -- not when you consider that we pay $2000 more for every American than the OECD average each and every year.

But it's more than just the costs or the people left out. Crucially important is that the public plan won't be big or effective enough to serve as a living example of the kind of large-pool public exchange models federal employees now enjoy. And that means it won't be a back-door to a European-style health care system. This is really key.

<edit>

The Kucinich amendment is really key. If it were to survive the legislative sausage-making and be enacted into law, the we could expect a progressive state to take advantage of the opportunity and enact a single-payer system in short order. And, if those of us who have been pushing such an arrangement are correct, the result will be greater access and better outcomes at a lower price tag for that state's residents.

And then we can move from an often ill-informed argument over the Canadian or British systems to a debate in which we can hold up a model in which millions of real Americans see very tangible benefits from an actual single-payer system in action.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. I wonder if states with single-payer plans will have an advantage
in enticing businesses to set up shop in the state. It would certainly be a refreshing change from the current tax-cut bidding process that we currently employ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. great point
sounds like that could be the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. It is only beneficial if it has a chance in hell of getting passed - do his bills usually pass?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Who else has passed a bi-partisan health care amendment out of committe? Not Obama. not Pelosi
Not Hillary, Not Kennedy, Not Todd.

So who has the best record?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. yep!
and a good amendment, it is!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Ask yourself why it's bipartisan?
Do the Republicans who voted for this amendment think that this improves the bill they universally oppose? That it makes it more likely to pass?

Can you say "poison-pill"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. The repos in the house don't get as much from the insurance industry so they have nothing to lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
6. Keep in mind that Canada's federal health system started out as a provincial one
Edited on Sat Jul-18-09 11:31 AM by RufusTFirefly
And it is still administered provincially to this day.

So there's precedent for Dennis's idea.

Perhaps a day will come that Dennis Kucinich is as revered in the U.S. as the late Tommy Douglas is in Canada.
Douglas, the premier of Saskatchewan and the founder of Canada's health care system, was voted "The Greatest Canadian" in 2004.

(On the other hand, I can already anticipate the propaganda campaign that will be launched against this as insurance companies take a page from the playbook that discredited Upton Sinclair's EPIC (End Poverty in California) plan in 1934.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
7. Man, if this actually works, I'm voting for Kucinich if he runs again. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
8. #8 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
10. The state single payer option sounds like a good idea...
And maybe smaller states could band together and form regional areas of reality-based healthcare.

Living in a Blue state, I could be an early benefactee of this. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Better than the shit they're trying to sell us as reform currently
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC