--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> None of these schemes will address medical inflation
> or huge
> administrative costs. Single-payer's the only way to
> do that.
>
[WS:] They do, but indirectly. Mandatory coverage under HRC plan is tantamount to universal coverage, no? What matters really isn that one cannot opt out under either of these formulas and both involve some level of coercion (buy a plan or pay a tax). So basically they one and the same thing - excpet that HRC's phrasing may have more appeal to discitplinarian minded folks who ar emore responsive to "coercing the slackers" than to "helping everyone."
In other words HRC plan is universal coverage, but not single payer.
Furtehrmore, both plans indirectly address medical inflation by talking about cost control, especially in the context of hospitals and drug companies.
Honestly, I do not think that there is any magic in a single payer plan - multiple payes can accomplish the same objective of inflation control if the regulatory environment is right. Covversely both can fail to achieve that objective if the regulatory environemtn is unfavorable (e.g. if drug companies can control the single payeragency through political means.)
Furthermore, multi-egency approach to health care coverage may be more conducive toward innovation than a single-agency approach, based on my own experience from Eastern Europe.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping