a republican I could learn to like

[walkitout]

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2009/06/14/bernarded_0614.html

I have no idea what else this Republican supports or opposes. But this _particular_ opinion piece I can find absolutely nothing to disagree with.

Go figure. A Republican arguing we should make Medicare cover everyone, then we could immediately save the marketing costs associated with private insurance. AND arguing that, "more savings will be possible if the effort to identify the best, most cost-effective treatments, now underway in the Medicare program, are expanded under a single-payer system." Pointing out that no one covered under Medicare or the VA wants those to go away, and that the people traveling to the US for medical care are coming from the Middle East, South America etc., not from Europe.

Wonder how long he'll stay Republican? OTOH, he says, "38 percent of Republicans" want health care reform, which is low compared to Democrats and Independents -- but more than the 1/3 necessary to accomplish change.

Comments

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

I think he's on the right track as far as wanting universal health care, but Medicare isn't exactly well run as it is, and what's supposed to happen to all the people who work for health insurance companies now? (Full disclosure: B. now works for Group Health.) Transition could be a bitch. Of course it's gonna be a bitch no matter how we do it, I suppose.

all the people who work for health insurance

[walkitout]

Under the current plan (not what the guy in this opinion piece is suggesting), the idea is for the government to provide some support for people getting private insurance, possibly with some regulation, and probably offer up a competing plan. This is close to what many, many, many other developed nations do (just because Britain and Canada have national health services does not make it typical). Under that scenario (and I realize, that's not what you're asking), B. should do just fine. Group Health is cost-effective and provides good service. I would expect InterMountain and Kaiser to do well, also. United HealthCare? Not so much. I think this transition issue is why the administration is pushing for this as a solution. If that means we don't save much money in the meantime? Well, it will have the effect of highlighting over time the _need_ to save money -- and everyone else who has gone with guaranteed health care has not turned their back on it. Get it done, any old way, and then fix it makes a great deal of sense, even if it annoys me.

I would argue that Medicare _is_ well run, by the standards of health care in this country. Perhaps not as well as the ones I mention above (I don't know -- I could see that being open for some debate). Almost certainly not as efficiently run as the VA (the VA, like the privates I mention, owns their own hospitals and when you own your own hospitals, you _know_ what incompetent or insufficient primary care leads to). The VA has had serious funding shortfalls impacting operations.

I want really good unemployment benefits/retraining/etc. so we can quit letting but-the-jobs-will-be-lost distort policy discussions. Especially since so many industries that were allowed to do ridiculous things so they wouldn't lay people off ultimately BK'd anyway. And the ones that didn't shipped all their jobs overseas.