I agree. I think both candidates are just going about it wrong. That's just me.

I understand that everyone needs to be covered to bring down cost, so Obamas plan won't work quite right,

However I Also know that I don't actually trust insurance companies to lower costs. So being honest mandates scare the holy living hell out of me. The Clintons haven't shown themselves to be big on regulation. So we end up trusting these companies.

Nice Post Des

I think the Dems were getting momentum, even had a few CEOs speaking out about it.

It all kind of fizzled when Bush got elected, it seems.

I feel your pain (re: exposure), Desidero!

On the meta-TPM post, I did have an extensive comment on perhaps why no one wants to "recommend" energy posts.

Of course, no one really commented on that comment. They did find lots to delight in on my one-liners elsewhere in the thread, though!

Sigh.

By the way, I disagree that the Dem's are running anti-business. Here in CA, you will find that most Dems are quite pro-business. Only way to get good jobs is to support business! However, I do agree that some Dems in, say, the rust-belt, tend to be more stereotypical in their reaction to business.

In the interests of getting your thread some attention, Desidero, I attached this at the bottom of Genghis's well-viewed blog.

I make no apologies for this as his post will drop off in a few hours anyway, but perhaps this will resurrect the discussion here.

EX-fucking-ACTLY...

But, but, but, socialism, and welfare, and and free market, and and TAXES...

WTF is an insurance premium, and a co-pay, and other out of pocket expenses if not a TAX?
A de facto health care tax that does not ensure coverage, does not ensure treatment, does not ensure affordability, and often leads to desperation (financial or otherwise). Honestly, if any sane, realistic person was forced to pick a small handful of things that a government MUST ensure/provide/oversee wouldn't health care be right up there with Security/military, infrastructure, and human rights?

I didn't like the mandate idea of Hillary's plan, until I watched the PBS Frontline documentary "Sick Around the World." The program spotlighted five capitalist democracies (Japan, Germany, UK, Switzerland and Taiwan) with universal health coverage, but they all do it differently from each other. One thing in common: all mandated. It made me rethink that aspect. Here's a link to PBS for anyone interested:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

That said, Obama's plan sounded a bit like an idea I like that I'm sure I didn't come up with (heheheh) but probably read somewhere, and that's to expand Medicare to kids up to age 12 and lower the adult age to 55. Play with that for a couple years, then move the age limits again. And maybe do it once more. This way you break it in gradually, get people used to it, they see that it works, they like it, and they want more. There's reason to think it would work, as Medicare is fairly well-run right now. So it's not like the US doesn't know how to do this. Obama starts by mandating coverage for children.

Another thing in common with the five universal coverage plans is that they all negotiate prices with drug companies (and others). This is a biggie, really. And right now the Republicans won't allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, and that amounts to a huge Big Pharma welfare program. So price negotiation is a must.

As for insurance companies, that topic is covered in the Frontline program, too. I'm thinking that they could still sell supplemental policies. My mother had great Medicare supplement insurance through her teacher's union. It didn't cost much and picked up things that Medicare didn't pay for and/or covered Medicare co-pays. But she would have been okay without that coverage, too.

Geez, this country really needs to be talking about this issue. How do we get the media to focus on this instead of the gotcha stuff?

One of the things that have occurred to me about why they have both come up with their respective plans is that they are a direct reflection on the way in which they do business.

It was one quote from Senator Clinton that got me thinking about this...

I think we as Democrats have to be willing to fight for universal healthcare. And what I concluded, when I was looking at this — because I got the same kind of advice, which was, "It's controversial, you'll run into all of this buzzsaw." And I said, "Been there, done that." But if you don't start by saying you're going to achieve universal healthcare, you will be nibbled to death. And I think it's imperative that as we move forward in this debate and into the campaign, that we recognize what both John Edwards and I did: That you have to bite this bullet — you have to say, "Yes, we are gonna try to get to universal healthcare."

In keeping with Senator Clinton's "fighting" theme, she thinks that she has to start as far left on this as possible from the outset so that she has more to concede on the path through the "buzzsaw".

And I think Obama started at a point that he felt he was more likely to be able to get people to agree with, because it's more incremental change.

I believe the Medical Industrial Complex needs to be driven to it's knees! Americans pay more for healthcare that any other country in the world and a vast percentage of that cost is for complex and extreme and experimental treatments in the last few months of life! Americans are used a guinea pigs by big pharma and then people whine about trial lawyers like my beloved John Edwards taking the bastards to the cleaners!
Big Business doesn't want to be out the capital for the healthcare packages they have promised employees and retirees alike.
If it is on a voluntary basis, face facts a lot of people will be short sited take cash up front and then expect coverage they did not help support when they need it. Bring taxes back to the way they were in 1968. Make the rich and the Corporations pay until they bleed. If corporations move operations off shore to save $$$$ tariff they hell out of them.
We have to take care of our fellow citizens before we can save the world.
We have borrowed millions fro the country that used to be called the RED MENACE to finance tax cuts for the rich and it has to stop NOW!

I agree its good business. Im in Healthcare and the AHA was ready to go universal in the 90s. They even did a study showing 20% of the Healthcare dollar is spent just on billing and collecting. Take that 20% and cover most the rest of America in a single payer system. (Overly simplistic but I say it for those who cant believe UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE CAN BE COST NEUTRAL, or better given the following points, there is tremendous waste and unfair profiteering, not to mention perverse incentive to overspend, such as the higher volume of sick people reactive medicine provides, and shotgun medicine malicious torts engender)

But your point is well taken: Healthier people work more, contribute more, treat more people, more people work and make stuff. Plus less headache and stress with the bills and games for all . Additionally, proactive medicine has better results than reactive. We have the best reactive medicine in the world, but thats not the key to a healthy, longer life.

It is, however, a key to high Rx profits, et all. Think of it as a trickle down argument. They get rich and think its justified as they reinvest, while we want to keep the money, thanks, invest in more efficient medicine, and invest the savings yourself. One way is thievery, the other is good business.

Thanks for the post.

You're definitely not going to win that Prius with insightful posts like this, Des.

I do notice a glut of clearthinker posts whenever anything concerning corporate responsibility manifests.

The Oil companies are really our friends, and gee, we shouldn't demand universal healthcare cuz it would "hurt" small business. (GOP talking point dontcha know)

The truth is, it would make them more competitive in a global marketplace....eventually.

Corporate shills aren't interested in profit in the long term, though.

Pity.

Healthcare and Energy should be treated as public utilities, as they are in other, "enlightened" societies.

The most successful trolls combine a bit of truth amoungst an ocean of lies.

It was merely an observation, but do whatever you think is right.

The last time a poster complained about me, she wrote she's never be back, although she was less than 24 hours later, with a new account.

I doubt Josh like that anymore than I dio.

(shrug)

I would agree that your have a point about making health-care less immutable with respect for one's employer. However, neither remaining candidate has proposed a true, single-payer universal healthcare plan.

workerbee, clearthinker: this altercation made me sad. I have seen both of you make sensible, rational, interesting comments on other topics. You both have valid points of view and useful things to contribute. So why jump down each other's throats? I'm sure there's a lot of history between you that I'm not familiar with, and perhaps that explains what came across as both personal attacks and rash assumptions about each other's viewpoint.

Clearthinker, I'm not sure I got your point. Mine was that looking at one state that DOESN'T have universal health care, and could not have the volume and scale that would be needed to make such a system effective is not useful for a new US-wide system.

MA is the closest thing we have to look at as a model -- and it should be considered a *best* case since it isn't as widespread in terms of scope and volume as you correctly point out.

You say we can't cherry-pick because we are different than Sweden and France. What do you mean? As far as I can see, the biggest hurdle we have is that there is not a firm concept of the "common good" here, which there is in those countries. Well, "every man for himself" just isn't working. We could learn a lot from other places that have comprehensive public transportation systems, good public health and better longevity than we have. Having a healthy populace is certainly as beneficial for every citizen as having an educated populace.

Be careful not to idolize Europe too much as it's a double sword. For example, taxation is *huge* in Europe compared to the US. People tend to get slotted into jobs based on background not ability (see the English class school system). Religion is not very popular -- certainly not like in this country.

And Europe gave us two World Wars with the most technologically efficient killing machines the world has ever seen.

Couple that with the fact that there is at least as much, if not more, racism in Europe than in the US. Consider, for example, that it was *illegal* to be a homosexual in Britain until the fairly recently. Or the reaction of the French to the Algerians. Or the British to the Pakistanis within their borders. Or the rampant antisemitism.

One of the first thing many Europeans love doing when they come to this country is to rent a car on the open road. It's a real pleasure to them.

People are people. Each society has it's relative merits, but humans are universal in their desire to acquire -- be it power, objects, attractive mates, you name it. And our large brains give us sophisticated ways of doing that acquiring.

Yes, most states do require car insurance. Why is that? Is that for the common good? No, it is for the insurance companies, but we all accept it.

I don't see your point. If you are claiming that insurance companies lobby government to force insurance on us, that is not correct. In CA, there are many types of insurance you can't even get anymore (fire for homes and certain types of worker insurance) because no company will underwrite the policies.

The government requires but does not enforce car insurance to ensure that people who hit you can compensate you for the damages.

When I say "Cherry-pick," I mean sitting down with a look at all the systems in other countries, what works and what doesn't, and choosing what would translate into success here.

And my point is that what we have here -- and is desirable (like shorter times when you need to get non-elected surgery) could be lost if you do things the way you suggest.

You need to start by examining what people *truly* want (not what they say they will want) and include the actual costs. See my comments to CaliforniaPaige below.

As to multi-million-dollar malpractice cases, they would become unnecessary and could be capped, because people with terrible injuries could actually be taken care of, instead of needing a huge award to get their care.

Who do you think facilitates the large malpractice lawsuits? Juries of your peers. Again, this is something that we the people have brought into the system.

A hospital is a dangerous place. Most people don't understand that. There is no such thing as "routine surgery". Most people don't understand that -- in part because no one really wants to hear that.

What is wrong with that? As a starting point, that is. The people who would be left jobless when all insurance companies close their doors could be retrained to start up our newest industry: alternative fuels R&D and production. Seems like a win/win to me!

With all due respect, this last comment is so off the wall, I can't tell if you are being serious or not. If you are serious, then there aren't enough pixels here for me to explain the "what is wrong with that" question you pose.

PS The United States already has too many unemployed scientists who could get involved in the research you propose -- which wouldn't produce the results you are looking for anyway. Assuming you could add to their ranks, taking unemployed insurers as a pool shows you have no idea what is required to do R&D. It's not simply a factor job where you can be "trained". Now I know that Hillary Clinton has proposed to invent a class of "green collar" workers, but these are really more like independent contractors (think plumbers, electricians, etc. for solar panels and hot water heaters).