----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Westrich" <westrich at nodimension.com>
>You are right that Chaffee's proposal would have
> passed as well and that the single-payer bloc was against
>it; but why should that matter when they had a majority >supporting
Medicaid expansion.
It's not clear to me at the time that there was a filibuster 60-vote majority for Medicaid expansion in the Senate. I was all for that version as my favored approach, but I didn't see an easy vote for it. I stick by my observation that no one was willing to compromise, and since I was heavily immersed in the single payer world at the time, I feel pretty confident making that statement. I probably shared at least some of that sentiment, and regret it now.
As as for Kerry's proposal
>Jim Westrich's argues it is, "not only wrongheaded but is
>quite literally "reactionary". There are a lot of things wrong with the
>healthcare system and I hardly think "access" for a few working families
is the
>most pressing."
I'm not sure Kerry's plan is perfect, but I find it intriguing and definitely dealing with many of the cost-savings issues, since it massively socializes the most expensive part of health care, namely chronic and extreme medical costs. Kerry agrees that access and costs are linked;
See http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/5875272.htm?1c for the major parts of the plan.
"Focusing on coverage without reducing the costs of health care for all Americans is treating the symptoms and ignoring the cause," Kerry said. "We cannot make health care affordable by tiptoeing around the edges, hoping to make progress without raising the wrath of the guardians of the status quo."
"Kerry's plan would create a "premium rebate pool," run by the federal government. Companies that offer health care to their employees would be eligible for reimbursements from the money pool for 75 percent of the catastrophic costs they incur above $50,000. In turn, the companies must use the savings to reduce the cost of workers' premiums."
Think about this-- this plan would socialize exactly the areas where premiums go out of control for many sick individuals. Without the threat of paying out massive catastrophic costs, insurance will be be much more available. And progressives can make advances just by lowering the rate at which the government takes over costs.
The plan has a series of other subsidies and costs savings, but this core socialization of catastrophic costs is very radical, not reactionary.
Nathan