Huffpo critical of Kennedy health bill

Density and Secrecy Will Defeat Democracy in Kennedy's Health Care Bill

The public finally got a look at Senator Kennedy's behemoth 615-page health care bill, a document so gargantuan that Huffington Post put out an SOS to readers to help the editors read it. During the lead-up to the health care war, Kennedy promised Americans that the conversation about their health industry would be a national one, unlike the debacle the first time when the Clintons tried to take on private health care. No more secrecy, Teddy promised. Except, this time the negotiations are -- once again -- happening behind closed doors, and the public's favorite option, single-payer, isn't represented at the table.

Kennedy has depicted this secret operation as essential to negotiations, but the popular single-payer option has been almost entirely shut out of the debate (59% of Americans believe the government should provide national health insurance). Meanwhile, according to The New York Times, lobbyists from "AARP, Aetna, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, the Business Roundtable, Easter Seals, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the United States Chamber of Commerce," are all present at the Kennedy meetings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/density-and-secrecy-will_b_214292.html

Couldn't that stat apply to a public health insurance option as well? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if most of those 59% believe that's the option they are supporting.

I'm one of the 59% but for the public option, which is still national health insurance, just not mandatory national health insurance.

that usually turns out to be eithe rwrong or not such a big deal after all. Their giant screaming headlines remind me of Drudge.

:eyes:

this looks like the survey question they are quoting:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 11-15, 2009. N=1,112 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.


.

"Should the government in Washington provide national health insurance, or is this something that should be left only to private enterprise?"

This gets 59% for government and 32 for private enterprise - but the KEY word in the polling question is "only". The yeses would include both single payer and those who want a single payer system.

http://pollingreport.com/health.htm

(Polling report does a pretty good job compiling all the studies - and this seems to be the one they are speaking of - but Allison Likenny is grossly misrepresenting it. )

I do think single payer has many supporters, but given the number of top politicians - including Dean, Kerry and Obama who all assured people that they would not lose the insurance they already had if they liked it - it is likely that this concept, which is incompatible with single payer, is important to many people at this point. This might be a class thing. People with insurance feeling they have something to lose and people without it wanting it directly from the government. (There also seem to be some that equate single payer insurance to free - which it won't be above a certain income.)

.

Who would you rather be in charge of your health care - your doctor, or some pencil-pusher?

Tell the working poor that barely make ends meet now (the very people who comprise most of the 47m uninsured) that they have to spend money they dont have to satisfy mandated health care.

Even with the "sliding scale" most public proponents are advocating it will still take money out of their pockets they cant afford to spend.

one way or the other. In single payer you'd just take the money in taxes from them directly

If the poor could afford it in the first place, whats the point?

to give it to them at price they can afford. The poor and everyone else in single payer countries have to pay higher taxes to have health care. So what's difference between taking money from them through taxes or paying hopefully a very small premium

There is not a linear relationship between income and taxes (there is no flat tax). The more you earn, the higher the effective tax rate is theoreticly (on earned income, not counting capital gains which is a loophole).

If a sliding scale is linear, its going to hurt the poor much more, who may pay little if any additional tax for something like this. Literally, the poor could pay no more taxes at all for this; you can fund this by adjusting the marginal rates on the top brackets.

There are countries with single payer systems below the USA in this table:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_wor-total-tax-wedge-single-worker

That is a great benefit of single-payer--it can be funded with progressive taxation (assuming the tax code is progressive)

but - if someone genuinely can't afford it, shouldn't they be at the level where Medicaid pays for it - or where the new plan has a sliding scale (like in SCHIP) that charges an affordable amount.

The problem is what is affordable? For a young healthy person, even if the cost were $200 a month (way below the cost), they might still be willing to take the risk that they would not get sick at all or that their medical bills would be under $2400 for the year. How do you define whether a person could afford it? In some cases, it is likely an economic decision.

You'd think single-payer advocate House Judiciary Chair John Conyers has the plague these days from the way his associates on the hill are dodging him. Conyers has been criticizing his fellow politicians for sabotaging the single-payer option.


"There is some notion that universal single-payer healthcare is off the table. Well, that raises a very important question. If you take the most popular healthcare reform measure and take it off the table, heaven knows what it is, I guess, you think you're left with. This is the most popular form, and it would be very unlike the party in the majority now to determine that the most popular system would not even be examined. I am asking for a hearing in every committee, every committee, and if they will let us into the Senate, as well."

Conyers, who -- once again represents what the majority of Americans actually want -- has been forced to chase the back of the health care bus like a crazed dog ever since March when he was not invited to President Obama's Health Care Summit. Ultimately, Obama invited him when Conyers threatened to take his case to the president himself.

Just what I said on another thread, we'll probably end up with a waterdown bill and consider it "better than nothing".

x(

constantly repeat. The only study that seems to back the 59% is one where the question was - "Should the government in Washington provide national health insurance, or is this something that should be left only to private enterprise?"

Seeing the weight she gives that claim, she needs to back it up with a link - and the question needs to refer specifically to single payer insurance, which this doesn't. The fact is that it might be the most popular - though not supported by 59%, but there are an infinite array of other possibilities - so this concept might be higher than any other specific idea - but still not popular enough to pass either the House or Senate.

I'm tired of posting them here and people ignoring them.

I am greatly sorry that I didn't read your earlier posts. I am not ignoring them - I didn't see them.

Edited to say that even after using search (single payer poll) and scanning posts, I can't find anything you posted on a survey that actually asked this. (I found one where the HP author read between the lines - even though the poll showed 73% preferring a hybrid - and only 9% preferred just government. (The author spoke of a private single payer - which I doubt could happen - That creates a monopoly. Who gets the plum job of running it?)

but how about this one?

get only crap out of this "Health" talk.

The Kennedy plan is not final - it hasn't even gone through a committee markup. If it passes with a public option, it will be better than what we have.

This is just Hillarycare v2.0.

Its not reform, its an insurance industry windfall in the making.

in Russia. All I heard about was Harry and Louise.

Discussions I've read since seem to be one extreme or the other.

It would be nice to read a thoughtful article explaining the difference between tha Kennedy and Baucus plans in terms of what they offered people in different situations. If it also covered things that were already proposed or should be proposed to create a better system, it would be helpful.

This article is not that. It is really just a temper tantrum in writing. Any plan that is not single payer is rejected amidst several unsupported claims that the majority of the country prefers single payer.

If there are details, there will be devils. Details are the loopholes and slippery slopes that the insurance companies use to avoid decency. And 615 pages provide a lot of details.

You have to listen to the Giants: "Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding".

Don't want to call them devils. Think about it. They are willing to let children die rather than suffer a decline in obscene profits. Sounds pretty evil to me. So do you think they will honor any agreement, any compromise, any decent solution if it means that they will put in jeopardy one thin dime of their wealth? If you do, you are foolish.

Without single payer, they will win. People say they want a public option, but the plans keep limiting what the government can offer, hampering the bargaining power of numbers. I had a doctor tell me that the simplest way around having them compete with a public plan is to pay doctors a higher fee for not participating. Doctors already refuse medicare patients. Insurance companies will simply pay better for the year or two it will take for the plan to fail.

You can't make deals with the devil. He lies.