the closeness in names with Healthcare Now! is a coincidence and not designed to confuse people at all or have a weaker healthcare plan somehow get confused with and substituted for a more inclusive and progressive one. Nope. Not at all what they’re doing.

Physicians for a National Health Plan is not pleased. And yeah, I am sure the name choice has nothing to do with sowing confusion with an organization dedicated to single payer.

I just noticed, looking at the difference between “Healthcare Now!” and “Health Care for America Now!”, that the phrase “for America” seems to be part of a brand strategy associated with things Obamacan.

Democracy for America. Deanian in origin but Obamacan in recent activities. I could dig for linky goodness if there’s a demand, but I’m lazy.

Obama for America - seen on the Great Seal and (apparently) the official name of his campaign organization.

Slick.

I suppose I should note that I haven’t found Obama’s name on the “Health Care for America Now!” materials, just his fingerprints, heh.

I hope readers will go to Open Left, FireDogLake and other blogs and alert readers to HR 676 and all the good organizations pushing it.

Guaranteed Health Care (California Nurses Organization) still posts at the Orange Frat House, so anyone who can still post there should recommend their diaries.

The blogger, Don McCanne, puts his finger on the problem: because of adverse selection

we would have a choice of highly-regulated, unaffordable private plans, or an even less affordable public program option.

I was afraid of this — that an Obama (or Clinton) victory would put us in position to enact a “reform” that will put single payer out of reach for a long time. Given that those who ought to be our allies are being drawn into this boondoggle, it may be important to do some strategizing. For instance, McCann points out

Why did the coalition insist on including private plans when the industry’s track record is so miserable? It was a political decision based not on which policies would actually work, but rather based on rhetorical framing…

What can we do to break that frame and impose a different one? If we’re truly stuck with that frame, what can we do to make any legislation work at least as well as the public/private system in, say, Germany?

is that MoveOn is an entity that could raise significant amounts of money and could help build a meaningful movement for UHC and instead they go for this incredibly weak version of reform.

I always thought Clinton’s plan was a trojan horse for single payer, but even if it wasn’t it at least was a serious stab at trying to achieve universality. Obama’s plan doesn’t even do that. So now we have the weakest reform plan offered as the new goal of the “leftist” MoveOn. Yet another step in moving the Overton window to the right.

Universality has always been the key for me. Because whatever weaknesses are in a mandate plan can be fixed. The key is to make sure everyone is covered because then any fixes won’t involve kicking anyone out as that would be politically untenable (there’s a reason why the GOP can’t kill off Social Security, everyone gets it). More likely, fixes will involve reducing costs, whether by single payer or strict insurance regulation. So long as you have a system that isn’t universal, it’s easier for Congress to “fix” any cost or other problems simply by excluding folks from the system through pricing or other mechanisms. And, of course, lack of universality raises costs making it more likely that the entire thing will need to be fixed by cutting access.

The MoveOn/Obama plan, IMO, is much more likely to lead to declarations that the Government just can’t afford healthcare than either the mandate plan or single payer.

It’s the worst of all reforms because not only will it provide the least help, it has the best chance of failing and setting back the cause.

also: i wonder what happens to plans with Mandates—like in MA—if Obama gets some weak nothing plan thru?

MoveOn.org had discovered an accessible archive in the Low Transcend.

And they’ll be off the Known Net for a few hours.

But it’s okay, no part of MoveOn.org has transcended, and they welcome volunteers and donations.

Is what Obama said, remember?

Alrighty, then.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

HCA:

* truly inclusive and accessible health care system in which no one is left out.

* A choice of a private insurance plan, including keeping the insurance you have if you like it, or a public insurance plan without a private insurer middleman that guarantees affordable coverage.

* A standard for health benefits that covers what people need to keep healthy and to be treated when they are ill. Health care benefits should cover all necessary care including preventative services and treatment needed by those with serious and chronic diseases and conditions.

* Health care coverage with out-of-pocket costs including premiums, co-pays and deductibles that are based on a family’s ability to pay for health care and without limits on payments for covered services.

* Equity in health care access, treatment, research and resources to people and communities of color, resulting in the elimination of racial disparities in health outcomes and real improvement in health and life expectancy for all.

* Health coverage through the largest possible pools in order to achieve affordable, quality coverage for the entire population and to share risk fairly.

* A watchdog role on all plans, to assure that risk is fairly spread among all health care payers and that insurers do not turn people away, raise rates or drop coverage based on a person’s health history or wrongly delay or deny care.

* A choice of doctors, health providers and public and private plans, without gaps in coverage or access and a delivery system that meets the needs of at-risk populations.

* Affordable and predictable health costs to businesses and employers. To the extent that employers contribute to the cost of health coverage, those payments should be related to employee wages rather than on a per-employee basis.

* Effective cost controls that promote quality, lower administrative costs and long term financial sustainability, including: standard claims forms, secure electronic medical records, using the public’s purchasing power to instill greater reliance on evidence-based protocols and lower drug and device prices, better management and treatment of chronic diseases and a public role in deciding where money is invested in health care.

Seems like pretty thin gruel, and, as others have noted, “universal” doesn’t appear, let alone single payer.

I hate to be paranoid and cynical, but didn’t this group just burst out of nowhere and magically get a lot of money? Looks like Astroturfing to me. Despite Elizabeth Edwards being involved.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.