Since the House bill, HR3200, is the best on offer from the Democratic leadership right now, I'll use it as a baseline. No doubt Baucus, Schumer, and the rest will make the final bill even worse. I've been out on the "progressive" blogs, lately, fighting for single payer, and this post condenses the talking points I've developed. Feel free to copy and paste this post everywhere (but link back to Corrente, please). Share and enjoy!
Ten talking points:
1. 10 million people will not be covered. That's not universal coverage. Read more about As Good as It Gets? Talking points on the Democrats' health care bills and single payer
Brad DeLong concludes:
Today--unless we get much faster real GDP growth than currently looks to be in the cards--we are headed for a jobless recovery. The answer to the economic question--was the stimulus sufficient to rapidly return the economy to something like normal unemployment?--is likely to be: "h--- no, it was much too small..."
The real question: Was that by accident or design? Read more about Does the administration really have "full employment" as a policy goal?
Pennacchio's citizens advocacy group is backing legislation known as the Family and Business Health Security Act that calls for elimination of insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
The plan would be funded through a 10-percent business payroll "health and wellness tax" and a 3-percent personal income tax.
Those fees, he said, would go into the Pennsylvania Health Trust and be used exclusively for health care delivery, including just 5 percent for administrative costs.
The plan also calls for eliminating waste and inefficiency in health care and promoting education.
Why, from Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, cofounders of PNHP, of course!
The short answer is that they found, in a study published in 2003, that the US spends about 31% of its health care dollars on administration and Canada spends about 16.7% of their health care dollars on administration [this is all administration, not just that attributable to insurance administration]. Which means that we are spending 14.3% of our health care dollars on what is probably useless administration, and they feel that this is a low estimate. Fine-tuning the estimate a little bit yields a difference of about 15.6%. Read more about Just where does "Medicare for all would save $350 billion" come from? [updated]
Been there, done that. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing and expecting a different result? Here's a massive takedown by PNHP's Kip Sullivan over at FDL on the Waxman "cost savings"* now being crammed into HR3200 (more from Obama here**): Read more about Health care deform from the Dems: Son of HMOs
This is bad news:
BEIJING — Government officials on Friday shut down the office of a prominent lawyers’ group known for taking on cases involving human rights and corruption. It was the latest attempt by the government to clamp down on lawyers willing to challenge officials and other powerful figures in court.
Or maybe the year. Alert reader Wally at baseline scenario:
There were rumors that Goldman-Sachs was in talks to acquire the Treasury Department. However, they were dismissed by a Goldman spokesman. “Why should we pay twice?” he asked.
Of course, that's the optimistic scenario.
Wally's assuming that Treasury did it for money, not love. Read more about Comment of the day
If you wondered why the US is in Afghanistan [has nothing to do with the sordid geopolitics of uranium, copper, oil and gas -of course], it's all about keeping promises - so says Steve Inskeep: Read more about NPR Selling the US Adventure in Afghanistan
[L]et's remember our history. The House voted against [TARP]. Nancy Pelosi indicated that she would not pass TARP unless Republicans voted for it in the same proportion as Democrats. They weren't going to do that, so TARP was dead.
Then Barack Obama stepped in and started twisting arms. TARP is Obama's baby. If you like it, or don't like it, remember, without Barack Obama it would have died.