I am definitely saying keep all the progressive stuff, but why not think a bit more originally on some issues (for example, fee-for-service payment mechanisms are widely discredited and create all kinds incentives to create bad care--yet this is a central payment method in HR 676 for many provider types). This is not a small issue but consistently gets glossed over by people (I understand why physicians gloss over it but I am puzzled why the Labor Party would).
I also need to recommend the same book Todd Archer did (yes, its a bit dated but as single-payer proposals are dated it still is important)--Strong Medicine: How to Save Canada's Health Care System" by Michael Rachlis and Carol Kushner.
For the record, Finland did the best job in the 90's controlling costs AND providing health care for all its citizens. Aren't there some lessons to be learned from other countries? Canada did an OK job controlling cost and still had enormous financial pressures that caused real hardships on people affected by other budget cuts. Should we ignore the fact that other progressive policies would be lost or rolled back if we follow this path?
Jim
Quoting JBrown72073 at cs.com:
> In a message dated 9/17/04 1:55:26 PM, lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org writes:
>
> >I also think there is a lot of room for discussion about what "universal
> >health care" should look like. You cannot get this if it there aren't
> serious
> >proposals being offered.
>
> There are serious proposals being offered. Try HR 676, a bill which uses the
> Labor Party's funding mechanism almost entirely (except I don't think it
> provides what we call a Just Transition for displaced insurance company
> workers).
>
> The serious proposals won't go anywhere without a political vehicle not
> hitched to insurance and drug company cash. That's why it's the top program
> of the
> Labor Party, not the Democratic Party. For the LP's program, see
> www.justhealthcare.org