On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Marvin Gandall wrote:
> I dunno. A quick hit on Google brought up this list, suggesting
> otherwise.
> Someone intent on getting active around the issue should be able to
> plug in
> somewhere.
>
> http://www.uhcan.org/index.php?
> option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=53
There's a lot of crap on that list, hidden behind the word "universal." E.g.:
<http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp180.html> (Campaign for America's Future)
> Health Care for America embodies this strategy.2 It would extend
> insurance to all non-elderly Americans through a new Medicare-like
> program and workplace health insurance, while creating an effective
> framework for controlling medical costs and improving health
> outcomes to guarantee affordable, quality care to all. It is at
> once comprehensive, realistic, consistent with American values and
> beliefs, and grounded in the best elements of the present system.
> It combines employer and personal responsibility with a strong
> public commitment to ensuring that American workers and their
> families and American employers can afford coverage....
>
> What Health Care for America would do is simple: every legal
> resident of the United States who lacks access to Medicare or good
> workplace coverage would be able to buy into the "Health Care for
> America Plan," a new public insurance pool modeled after Medicare.
> This new program would team up with Medicare to bargain for lower
> prices and upgrade the quality of care so that every enrollee would
> have access to either an affordable Medicare-like plan with free
> choice of providers or to a selection of comprehensive private plans.
>
> At the same time, employers would be asked to either provide
> coverage as good as this new plan or, failing that, make a
> relatively modest payroll-based contribution to the Health Care for
> America Plan to help finance coverage for their workers. At a
> stroke, then, no one with a direct or family tie to the workforce
> would remain uninsured. The self-employed could buy into the plan
> by paying the same payroll-based contribution; those without
> workplace ties would be able to buy into Health Care for America by
> paying an income-related premium. The states would be given
> powerful incentives to enroll any remaining uninsured.
>
> Equally important is what Health Care for America would not do. It
> would not eliminate private employment-based insurance. It would
> not allow employers to retreat from the financing of a reasonable
> share of the cost of health insurance. It would not leave Americans
> coping with ever-higher private insurance premiums with an
> inadequate voucher, or pressure them to enroll in HMOs that do not
> cover care from the doctors they know and trust. It would not break
> up the large insurance groups in the public and private sectors
> that are best capable of pooling risks today.
<http://www.americanprogress.org/projects/healthprogress/ reformfaq.html#4>
> Our current insurance options, while far from perfect, work for
> over 80 percent of Americans. We should improve them, not replace
> them.
<http://www.afscme.org/issues/74.cfm> (and links from that page)
> A new universal system could incorporate a unified, single-payer
> approach or a series of inter-related public and private programs.
<http://www.americansforhealthcare.org> (SEIU)
This site says things are pretty bad but as far as I can tell has nothing on offer, which isn't a surprise coming from SEIU.
Doug