|
||
"Why Not Single Payer?" A Response to Paul Krugman and the Leading Democratic Presidential Contenders. Part 1.
Faster than you can say the word "Sicko" and turn around 3 times, the Democrats' promise of health care for all has gone from "Universal Medicare For All" to "Individual Insurance Mandate". In Monday's New York Times, Paul Krugman defends that reversal in an article entitled "Why Not Single Payer?"
The possibility, after the 2008 elections, of a Democratic-controlled Congress which could pass Medicare For All (a/k/a Universal Single Payer Health Insurance) and a Democratic President who would sign it, could bring about the best chance to enact Medicare For All since Harry Truman first proposed it in 1948.
Yet without firing a shot and with no debate, the leading Democratic Presidential Contenders--Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama--as well as a good part of the Washington progressive infrastructure of think tanks and lobbying groups--have given up the fight for Medicare For All. Instead they propose variations of an Individual Mandate plan developed over the past 15 years by the "moderate" corporate wing of the Republican Party, a version of which Mitt Romney enacted in Massachusetts and which Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing in California as an alternative to the single payer plan which the Democratic California legislature passed last year that he vetoed.
The thing is, I can't quite figure out why the Democrats are in such rapid retreat from Medicare For All before the first battle has even been joined. Is it another example of the political cowardice by which the only Iraq resolutions that can pass the Democratic controlled Senate are a Republican-driven bill condemning MoveOn.Org. and praising Gen. Petraeus and another declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization? Is it because the Democratic candidates are afraid of being accused by Republicans of supporting socialized medicine? (If so, it won't help because Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney--whose Massachusetts plan Hillary largely imitates--all quickly claimed that Hillarycare 2.0 is socialized medicine, anyway.) Is it because they've been bought off by insurance companies and drug companies or fear that too many other Congress and Senate members have?
Or is it because they think that the insurance companies and drug companies are just too politically powerful to take on: Therefore the only way to insure most Americans is to make a deal with the devil that requires profit-making insurance companies to waive pre-existing conditions and charge everyone similar premiums regardless of age or health, in exchange for Congress delivering them 50 million guaranteed new profit-making customers, partly subsidized by the government?
Paul Krugman's NY Times column is one of the first direct attempts by a liberal former supporter of single payer to try to make the case for adopting the Individual Mandate approach instead. According to Krugman, "basically it looks like something that could actually happen in the next administration, while enacting a single-payer plan...excellent as those plans are, might take a very long time."
First, Krugman argues than an Individual Mandate would not require a big tax increase, although he admits (thus defeating his own argument) that taxes which most people would pay for single payer would most likely be lower than premiums that an Individual Mandate would require them to pay out of their pockets to buy insurance. Second, he argues than an Individual Mandate won't make people feel that they're "being forced into a government plan". But the essence of an Individual Mandate plan is that the federal government forces the uninsured to buy health insurance. It involves even more government coercion than Medicare For All.
Finally, he argues that the Democrats' proposals generally include a Medicare-like public insurance alternative which individuals may buy into and which "would evolve into single-payer over time." Krugman never quite explains how this piece of alchemy will occur. Moreover, he admits that this is the part of the Democrats' plan that the insurance industry will fight "tooth and nail". If the Democrats have already surrendered on Medicare For All without firing a shot, isn't it likely that the public alternative (the "socialized medicine" part) will be the first part of the plan to be compromised away when the legislative battles start in Congress and the insurance lobby starts exercising its muscle with its hundreds of lobbyists and tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions?
In short, I find Krugman's notion that an Individual Mandate is somehow more politically pragmatic than Medicare For All unconvincing and I don't buy his argument that it's a backdoor way to eventually get there. I even wonder how strongly he believes his own arguments. Only last January, in critiquing Schwarzeneggers's Individual Mandate plan for California as a complicated "Rube Goldberg" device, Krugman argued that "the plan requires a much more intrusive government role than a single-payer system. Instead of reducing paperwork, the plan adds three new bureaucracies: one to police individuals to make sure they buy insurance, one to determine if they're poor enough to receive aid, and one to police insurers to make sure they don't discriminate against the unwell." If you then add a public Medicare-like alternative that individuals can buy into, you need a fourth bureaucracy to administer that system.
Thus, when Hillary Clinton claims that her plan requires no new government bureaucracy, she's not being candid with the voters. That lack of candor will quickly be exploited by the Republicans and the insurance and drug lobbies. While Republicans are wrong that her plan amounts to "socialized medicine", such charges will still ring true since, in fact, her plan will require intrusive government regulation of the private insurance industry and coercive action to be sure that all citizens are obeying the individual mandate to buy health insurance. That's one of the big reasons why, once the debate really starts, an Individual Mandate will not necessarily be a popular plan with the voters--Using the political pragmatism test, it stands a better chance of being rejected by the public and meeting the same fate as Hillarycare 1.0 than does Medicare For All, for which the political arguments are simple and clean.
Whatever Clinton might claim, Hillarycare 2.0 in fact requires a highly intrusive government presence in the lives of both businesses and individuals. As with Hillarycare 1.0, this is likely to be the biggest club that Republicans and their insurance company allies will use to defeat her or another Democrat as they did in 1994, unless so many compromises are made to water down the plan that insurance and drug companies decide it's in their interest to accept the 50 million new mandatory government subsidized customers to pad their bottom lines. (Remember that with private insurance, approximately 30% of the healthcare dollar goes to administration, executive salaries and profits, compared to 2%-3% for Medicare; when all the political deals are finally cut, the private insurance and drug industries might find a new government subsidy for their bottom line an attractive deal.) If an Individual Mandate plan is more politically expedient than Medicare For All, it's not for any of the reasons which Krugman cites and not because it's likely to be more politically popular with the voters. The real reason is that with a few backroom political compromises, it could become a that plan the insurance and drug industries could learn to love.
END OF PART 1
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dennis Kucinich has been proposing universal NON-PROFIT health care since Day One. Prominent democrats receive ALOT of contributions from both insurance companies and HMO's. They feel as a lobby they're too big (and donate too much) to take on. Kucinich's plan makes sense. Go check out his website.
When people start complaining about what they pay, compare the amount our employers pay, we contribute to the plan, we pay in co-pays and deductibles, and what's not covered at all... that is, if we're lucky enough to have health insurance.
For those who do not want a "socialist system"...well, your Congressman, even a one-term guy, gets life-time 100% free healthcare, paid for by the US taxpayer. Even the most ardent right winger Congressman is not turning this down.
The question is, why him and not you?
Not only do we subsidize the Congress with socialized medicine, we pay billionns (in aid) to Israel and they have socialized medicine but (we are told that) we can't afford it for ourselves. I can see some priorities here, and I can see that the American people are not the number one concern.
The very first thing one is told when applying for Medicaid is "We don't provide long-term care." And yet at least 50 percent of State Medicaid costs come from nursing home care. This makes no sense to me. On the other hand, Medicare is supposed to cover hospitalization for all who have it. I would think that nursing home residency should be considered hospitalization and covered by Medicare. If this were the case, States would automatically save 50 percent of their Medicaid expenses and could no longer blame Medicaid for all their troubles.
My mother-in-law paid over a hundred thousand dollars for nursing home care in her final year and a half. A neighbor who signed her money and her property over to her children ten or so years ago got the same level of care in the same facility and paid NADA, even though her estate was worth way more than that of my MIL.
It is another case of government "solutions" leading to rewarding of cheaters and to punishing of those who are unable or unwilling to take advantage of blatant unfair loopholes.
But her social security, pension, and any income she receives has to go to the nursing home, so it really wasn't nada. It's just that her estate was preserved. I know because we are going through this now. I feel that what social security and pension provide is very fair, considering the care that my father gets. The nursing homes over charge--that's the
crime. $100,000 per year for people sitting in wheel chairs. The patients get maybe about an hour to an hour and a half of devoted time.
The adoption of universal healthcare would ot just re-shape the healthcare landscape, but the overall economic and employment landscape. How many of us keep slogging away at jobs we don't want to be in solely due to the healthcare benefots offered by that job? Adopting a government-run, universal healthcare system would truly create a free market - of labor - where Americans can turly feel unburdened by the weight of paying for a portion of their healthcare, relying on the employer for that healthcare, and being afraid of being denied particular treatments because of their class of coverage.
Not only that - universal healthcare is such an optimistic message to spread across the country - the fact that healthcare would now come to mean prevention and cures, not paperwork and aggravation. Think of how many people would be inspired to join the healthcare apparatus: from doctors and nurses to researchers and civil service workers. Better healthcare should be our 21st Century "Moon Shot." Unfortunately, not one of the Democratic candidates has the courage to either shoot for the moon or to believe this is a fight worth losing for.
Well said.
While it is fun structure this debate around good guys and bad guys -- big, companies vereses the people! -- the fact is that the real problem is COST, not who pays. You can have single payer, universal, individual mandates, employer-based, law of the jungle -- whatever, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, there still isn't nearly enough money anywhere to give everyone access to all of the healthcare they might ever want or need. All healthcare systems ration access. You can argue with some force that our rationing makes less sense than other systems, but don't tell me that the magic of Medicare will greatly expand access without a huge need to draw much, much more money out of the economy to pay for healthcare. You also have to be honest about Medicare's shortcomings -- it is rife with fraud, deeply underfunded now, and lots of seniors feel the need to buy private insurance on top of it. Figure out a way to address cost first and the rest gets a lot easier.
So why is it that we are so concerned about the cost of Medicare when we spends billions to subsidize insurance companies?
No problem giving millions in tax breaks to corporations mining companies. OR spending BILLIONS in Iraq. Or spending billions on worthless weapons systems. No problem there, but if we start talking about Medicare it's a whole different story.
COST is a red herring. Yes there is waste and fraud in Medicare. AND there always will be. Do you think that if there was ZERO waste and fraud in the system that it would be acceptible to people determined to abolish it?
IT PALES in comparison to what private companies are stealing. Right now we are subsidizing companies selling the Medicare Advantage plans to the tune of 20% so they can ration care and steal 35% profits. It's a travisty. Medicare operates at 4% overhead, even better if you take out the waste and fraud
Traditional Medicare is far more efficient than the Medicare Advantage plans but we ARE OBSESSED with privatizing everything whether it hurts us or not.
The Medicare Supplemental plans you talk about are being squeezed because we subsidizing the Adavntage plans to FORCE people out of traditional Medicare. AND the supplemntal plans were created to plaqate the insurance industry. Medicare could have been a COMPLETE PLAN.
It is truly sad that so many Americans have been brainwashed into thinking it is better to turn Medicare over to the private insurance industry because they will SAVE money. IT's a joke. But look at you, your a smart guy and EVEN you are going on about the waste and fraud in Medicare.
?? I am not sure what that has to do with my point. You like Medicare -- great. It still is going to cost a huge amount to make it universal -- and when "huge" in this context means a lot more than (i) subsidies to mining companies, (ii) Iraq, (iii) weapons systems, (iv) soaking the rich, and whatever else you might like or dislike. All universal systems have to severely control expenses, and that is not something that Americans currently want or are used to. All people want access to all care -- and that includes timely hip replacements and open heart surgery for elderly grandparents. If you want to take-on a big bill, at least be honest about the size of it and how it is going to be paid.
Well, dchavern, COST may be the real problem, but if that's so how does implementing a system with a 30% overhead (private insurer-based coverage) help, when one with a less than 5% overhead gives better care (single payer, government-run coverage)?
Answer: It doesn't.
And of course, one way to address costs is to stop putting half a trillion dollars into Defense (more than the rest of the world combined). How is it that a few thousand folks with turbins, borrowed rifles, and hand-made bombs warrant a bigger defense budget than the entire Soviet Union -- which had four million troops and tens of thousands of nukes and missiles?
Answer: It doesn't cost more to defend ourselves against them.
Actually, WE taxpayers pay for the defenses of many countries whose governments can and do manage to afford healthcare for ALL of their own people. So how did our priority get to be THEIR defense, yet their priority is healthcare for their own? And, we are told by our government that we can't afford healthcare for ourselves. How does our government get away with this scam? By forcing countries who take our military aid to spend it to buy arms from our military-industrial establishment. And congress passes the pork around, so any state might get some economic benefits from this system at any time. Problem is those people, the great majority, who get no benefits at all and are deprived of healthcare in the bargain.
This is a system that doesn't pass the morality smell-test, but it is going to be hard to shut it down because of the pork involved.
True that a single payer system would have less overhead that the private system.
It is also true that other industrialized countries pay about 60% of what the average US insured people pay.
Additionally, about half the bankruptcies in the US are due to the cost of medical care, versus ZERO bankruptcies in other countries due to medical care. One can see the desire of the right-wing to bankrupt middle class families in the Graeme Frost deal (the kid who spoke up for S-CHIP. Right wing bloggers were INCENSED they had any assests at all before they went to the state for help).
Furthermore, no one seems to bring up the point that because of the way our healthcare is structured, the US pays for almost ALL the drug R&D in the world. Most countries get their drugs at cost.
And, lastly, as Sicko points out, our system encourages the minimum care for the cheapest price. Capitalism at its finest.
If a universal health care bill is done right, the US consumer might very well pay LESS for healthcare.
To me, the interesting thing is that nobody mentions the PEACE OF MIND that would come from knowing that oneself and one's family is protected from the financial results of medical catastrophe (even if one loses a job and medical insurance). Taxpayers's paying for this peace of mind is no different than any other form of sharing of risk (including providing police and fire departments). Imagine what would happen if a private fire department could decide that YOUR fire is not worth putting out, even though you paid for protection...that is our situation now with private health insurance).
EVERY other reasonably advanced country recognizes medical care as a basic human right.
And all of the yammering about private insurance won't change the fact that insurance companies are not reliable or honest. It used to be that having insurance provided some of that peace of mind, but that was before Reagan deregulated. Now having medical insurance AND a serious health problem is a guarantee of finding oneself in the middle of an adversarial relationship with a company whose main goal is investor profit.
The cost of the layers of redtape created by insurance companies trying not to honor policies, and providers of medical care trying to force them to pay up is estimated to add 30% to our already outrageous medical costs.
Not only that, but providing government-guaranteed health insurance would help our workers to be more competitive in a world labor market in which they now have to compete with workers from countries (all of them) who do have government-proved healthcare. (Why aren't the presidential candidates even mentioning this benefit? Are they THAT afraid of displeasing the private insurance companies...the ones that profiteer on people's private disasters).
Today, there is not ONE person who doesn't wonder whether the insurance they have will cover them if they get REALLY sick. AND in fact, they are right to worry. There is nothing to keep any company from cutting you off or simply denying your claim all together. AND it is virtually impossible to appeal a denial. In fact the law has made it even harder to sue these companies. AND how many people can afford to sue anyway. While they are dying of cancer right?
What a truly sick system we.
Any troll who thinks they have THEIRS so everyhting is fine. JUST wait till you need your insurance. You might be in for a rude awakening.
FOR PROFIT " insurance " is a discrace.
50 million without health insurance is a discrace.
Another 100 million with " one claim" ( read your contract!! ) insurance is a discrace.
Why anyone would want to keep these greedy thieving corrupt insurance companies is beyond me.
Besides, the health insurance industry is a complete failure. If you consider providing services as a criterian.
Of course the trolls here think that Wall street profits are more important than keeping people healthy.
AND they think that they will always have insurnace, and they believe that a great example of personal responsibility is being 50 yrs old, loosing your job and health insurance, having a pre-existing condition so NO company will sell you individual health insurnace, getting sick and loosing your entire life savings in one two week hospital stay. AND, they believe it was YOUR FAULT for getting sick and you DESERVE to loose everything.
That's how twisted these fools are that come here and trash us for wanting Medicare for ALL.
What is going on in this country right now with rationing, private nursing homes, etc. is beyond belief. And the trolls think it is just fine. After all they have THEIRS and that is all that counts right?
The question is, how do you build the necessary public support for Medicare for All when we get NO information from the news media on this program. NONE!
Until people understand the overwehlming advantages of this type of program it will never happen. There are just too many people that now have insurnace that have been terrofied into thinking that they will LOOSE their coverage or it will be terrible.
I have yet to hear one word from any main stream nws media outlet that talks about how GREAT Medicare for ALL would be for the country.
Outstanding arguments Mr. Mogulescu. As inefficient and, well, brain damaged as the Clinton, etc. plans are, they do reflect a realism about the political climate. Somehow our country has been taken hostage by voodoo magicians of capitalism when socialism is the rational choice.
Rationally, socialized medicine provides more care per dollar than for profit institutions. The scary thing is that people seem to believe that if physicians and nurses are not motivated by profit that they would not put in a little overtime to save a life. It is the assumption that all that is creative is only a product of the profit motive that is patently false.
The truth is that the profit motive is as destructive of creativity as it is conducive, depending on the avarice of those in charge of the creative works. Take the light bulb, the razor blade, the X-box, or the ink cartridge as examples of how industry has conspired to deny a technical advantage to the public by withholding it.
If the province of technology is innovation, the product is cost reduction in human effort, and in a perfectly reasonable world, a cost reduction for products, including healthcare. Instead, we have been feed a constant stream of assertions that the reason for healthcare being so expensive was improving technology. If this were true of technology, them the cost of the computer on which you are reading this would be going up and not down.
People will create. The more darkly craven of businesses know this and do not share the largess of their increasing profits with the people who do so create. The creative and caring professionals will not be affected in any way by socialized medicine. In fact, they may feel a sense of relief.
This analysis/commentary by Miles Mogulescu is the best single piece on the health care issue that I've seen. It is clear that the Democrats are either unable or unwilling to lead on this issue (or both). They should be aggressively educating the public, most of whom would back them on this issue (and the issue would gain votes for them).
The first step is to resist right-wing framing of the issue. For each time someone intones "socialized medicine" or "government-run health care," at least _two_ Democrats should say loud and clear, "It is _non-profit_ health _insurance_ and _privately delivered_ health _care._" But I have yet to hear a Democrat put it this way. (Kucinich understands the issue and the proper solution, but isn't always able to articulate his policy in a way that makes it clear to people who don't share all his premises.)
It is hard to resist the conclusion that the Democrats are unable to lead _because_ they are unwilling, and that they are unwilling because of their ties to the insurance industry. But we shouldn't underestimate their sheer ineptitude, either--both at gauging the public mood and at capitalizing on it politically.
Hmmm... I like "National Health Care" better than "Single-Payer Health Care," "Socialized Medicine" or "Medicare for All." Why can't Democrats learn to wave the flag when they need to? The cost of health care is an iceberg looming off the bow, as we wait for Baby Boomers to retire and start requiring some serious care. General Motors acknowledges that $2,000 of every vehicle goes to pay for retiree benefits, primarily health care. At some point this has got to turn into a serious national issue, and the party in control of Congress needs to start making progress on this impending demographic and economic crisis.
Like many other important issues facing us today, honesty and facts are absent from the discussion of US health care and the need for a non-profit, single payer system. Obviously, special interests in both political parties prevent a viable discussion. But equally important are the myths surrounding health care. Universal health care in countries that offer it is not free. Receipients of this care must stop referring to it as free. I cringe everytime I hear a Canadian say they receive free health care.Care is not free they pay taxes for it. This mistatement allows the conservatives to argue that Americans want health care without paying for it. Thereby making the argument that it is socialized medicine and unAmerican--end of discussion. Not until a real American statesman stands up and proclaims that increased taxes are necessay for universal health care will the argument move forward. Once the average American citizen accepts this then they will be susceptible to the following proposition: If you were asked to pay an additional $3,000-$4,000 in federal taxes in exchange for eliminating the current $6,000-$8,000 in health insurance premiums plus deductibles you are presently paying for your family and the obtuse paperwork, would you vote for single payer, universal health insurance? I think the answer would be yes and an inevitable movement towards the single payer system would begin.
You ingnorance is mind boggling:
What happens to the employees of the insurance cos?
What happens to the shareholders of these companies (mutual funds, pension plans etc.)? Does the Gov't re-imburse the investors the 500+ billion in value they will lose immediately, not to mention what happens to the entire stock market in general.
Medicare is not efficient in the slightest, yes it has a 3% admin overhead compared to 20% for the insurance industry. The main reason for this is they rarely seek out, prevent or account for FRAUD!!!
Ignorance is dangerous. Impletent Medicare for everyone and welcome us to another Great Depression
What happens to the employees of the insurance companies? The same thing that has happened to employees throughout history when their positions become obsolete. They move on. What happens to shareholders? The stock market is a risky business. If a stock doesn't look profitable any longer, you sell. Invest elsewhere. Stop the damn war, quit paying the insurance companies to be middle-men, and give Americans what every other civilized nation has - universal health care.
Who are you most concerned about, the uninsured poor including millions of children, or insurance company employees, who make our present system much more inefficient than Medicare or the VA, both of which I belong to as an old retired army officer.
Why should 45 million Americans be without health care? It is immoral that all our citizens do not have health insurance. Cut out the present 20 percent overhead and we can cover everyone.
Why should 20 percent of the money we spend on health care go to overhead to pay for insurance companies who attempt to keep down expenses by denying health care to people who are insured? Government health care programs in other countries do not deny medical care to their citizens.
You are wrong about Medicare and fraud. The program does monitor and prosecute it. (There is also a lot of fraud in private insurance.) The reason private plans are so expensive is overhead, profit and advertising. All the data shows that Medicare delivers comparable services for a much lower price. That is why Bush has us SUBSIDIZING private providers so that they can compete with it.
The hybrid plans proposed by Democrats will allow a gradual shift away from for profit insurance. When people realize that the public program is less expensive (assuming we don't subsidize the private plans), they will switch to it and we will gradually move to single payer. This is the most politically realistic option, and what Krugman is referring to. Remember the for profit health care industry is extremely powerful and has huge clout with our media. That is why we don't get an honest discussion ala "Sicko" in this country and we aren't going to. It is only because the situation is now so bad that most of us are affected or know people who are that the public is waking up.
We need to stop making the perfect the enemy of the good.
this must be why all those European countries, which DO provide medical care for everyone are experiencing a great depression. phony fear mongering without a shred of truth.
Amazingly misinformed. People like this who don't have a clue, make statements that are factualy incorrect but are brainwashed against universal care are the real problem in our country.
It doesn't matter what kind of information you could show him that contradicts his statements.
The Great Depression one is the best. Where in the world did that piece of specultive fiction come from?
And the guy has the brass to call us ignorant.
Why in the world would we want any government, federal or state, to run our healthcare system?
These are the people that brought us FEMA, VA Hospitals, the DMV, bankrupt Social Security program, the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, AMTRAK, etc.
The list is endless.
What are you and we thinking?
"Why in the world would we want any government, federal or state, to run our healthcare system?"
Ask your relaatives over 65 what they think of Medicare.
No "must be in network" nonsense - that was invented by private insurer's tor restrict patient choices
No "get a 2nd opinion before we will pay - and still may be we won't" - that was invented by private insurers to duck paying bills
No "not pre-approved so we are not paying" - a thing invented by private insurers to even get out of paying ambulance bills for transport from an accident (though how one is supposed to get pre-approval at the scene of a traffic accident is an elusive concept.)
Medicare works and works well. he private insurers aren't spending 17-22% more on administration to "root out fraud" - they are spending the extra amounts figuring out how to duck claims and avoid covering people. And don't forget the additional 10-15% they take out of the premiums for their profit.
So yeah - a system that lets patients choose their providers and costs 3 cents out of every dollar is a LOT better than one that takes 27-37 cents out of every dollar and makes your healthcare decisions for you and does it based, not on what is best for you, but on the their bottom line profit.
"Ask your relaatives over 65 what they think of Medicare."
Ask the old-timers at Amway or any other MLM scheme if it's a good program.
Of course it is! They're all multimillionaires. Now all you have to do it get 1,000 suckers to sign up under you and you can be a millionaire too!
When you ask the grandparent and they think it's great, and then you ask the grandkids and they think it's a disaster, you're usually talking about a ponzi scheme.
By the way, how many veterans are happy with their health insurance program? That's single payer too, right? It should be fantabulous.
And can you explain why my dad could buy 100's of different drugs at Walmart for $4 per month, but he has to pay much, much more than that at the VA pharmacy? I thought single payer plans were ALWAYS more cost effective than private entities. But you can't use a VA prescription at Walmart. You MUST get your overpriced drugs from the government pharmacy. So much for the liberal fantasy...
"Why in the world would we want any government, federal or state, to run our healthcare system?"
Two reasons: One-- because if you look at facts instead of rhetoric, they don't do a bad job (unless they're run by Bush and Co.). Best example: FEMA was highly effective under past presidents. As for social security, I'll take Greenspan's word over yours-- it needs long-term reform but is neither bankrupt nor heading towards bankrupcy anytime soon.
Two-- the private sector healthcare system is horribly inefficient at providing affordable care. Over 45 million uninsured, and ~100 million underinsured, out of a population of 300 million... that's close to 50%. Private insurance includes ~30% administrative and overhead costs, whereas medicare's is 3%. Universal healthcare would increase government spending on healthcare, but net spending for the public-- in the aggregate and for the vast majority of families-- would almost certainly drop. And, contrary to the bogus claims made about socialized medicine, a properly designed program would give doctors and patients MORE control over healthcare decisions than they have now. Insurance company "bureaucrats" make too many of those decisions now.
George Bush and his buddies brought us the dispicible FEMA. It worked very well under Clinton. When the Republicans says that "big government (or just govt in general) is the problem", they then go prove it by destroying what works.
"The thing is, I can't quite figure out why the Democrats are in such rapid retreat from Medicare For All before the first battle has even been joined."
Perhaps it's due to the fact that that wondrous, magically efficient Medicare program is facing a 75 trillion dollar shortfall. How amazingly, astoundingly practical! I mean, all we have to do is round up everyone in the entire country, sell all of their homes and cars, empty all their bank and retirement accounts, and put all the money into a pot to set aside for Medicare. Now that's a good start, but it still wouldn't quite be enough. So then we could sell our top 500 corporations to the other countries around the world, and take all that money and dump it into the pot.
Then we can all stand back and look in fanciful awe at what a fabulous program we've funded for ourselves.
Of course, that money only covers the 'senior citizens', so we may have to put off covering the rest of society for a few hundred more years as we try to recuperate from the fire sale...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070711/EDITORIAL/107110013/1013
You don't know what you are talking about.
Enough said.
Loading comments…
|
||
Posted October 10, 2007 | 03:10 AM (EST)