Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:04pm — DCblogger
Shattuck in bid unseat Rep. Schmitz
"People aren't getting the coverage they're paying for," Shattuck said. "I don't want to wait for what's going to happen at the federal level, because we don't know when that's going to happen. We're already paying for the people who don't have health care ... when people go to the emergency room because they can't pay their bills."
»
- DCblogger's blog
Printer-friendly version- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
she sounds great--
there are all sorts of good state things (and state and local officials/candidates) being fought for and/or happening on healthcare (especially for kids, etc) but now many states are or will be cutting budgets/programs because of tax and other shortfalls--and DC will be sending less to states as well.
and it truly is a national emergency and demands national action now more than ever--each new unemployment report shows more and more who have lost their coverage--if they even had it to begin with.
(semi-related, state-wise--Rendell wasn't able to get a healthcare thing thru apparently--and he's a popular governor in a blue state-- Governor pushes Senate to vote on health care bill -- http://www.republicanherald.com/articles...
)
single payer saves state money
If a state pays all of its bills and has no insurance cos. it would come out ahead. Instead of soaring premiums for its state employees, it would just pay. And since it was a single payer, it could determine costs. Pharma makes a lot less. But they will need federal authority. But states can do this on their own, that is how it happened in Canada.
but how could states
shut out insurers and hmos, etc? Especially when employers may or may not be businesses incorporated in that state? And raise enough in taxes to fund it (it would cost a state billions every year, even tho it would cost less than what exists now)?
I don't see how you get to single-payer in one state alone--or how 1 state govt can do anything more than provide healthcare to all residents as a safety net/option, but not mandate it as the only thing.
Wouldn't HMOs and other private insurers flood that state with however many millions it took to kill it so they don't go out of business?
And wouldn't doing business--having a branch office or factory or whatever --in that one state as opposed to another--immediately get more expensive because that one state would have to get revenue from every business and every employee to fund it while other states wouldn't have to?
And wouldn't retirees and others who had lost their coverage move to that one state and add to the burdens, and wouldn't others from all over simply travel there to seek care? People now travel to other countries to get medical and dental--is it realistic to expect one state to be able to determine residence and deny needed medical care?
I don't see how piecemeal can work --especially when we already have existing yet limited national healthcare with Medicaid and Medicare.
(It's sorta like what states are doing now with Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships--they're creating separate and unequal systems while there already are national systems existing that should just be expanded)
state single payer
there is single payer legislation in PA, CA, IL, and probably some other states, so clearly people who have thought a great deal about this and who have a detailed understanding of their state's budget think that this can be done.
i thought it died in PA--
and that Rendell had to drastically cut it down so it wasn't really single-payer and he still couldn't get it thru?
on PA-- http://www.republicanherald.com/articles...
"... Gov. Ed Rendell denounced Republicans in the state Senate on Wednesday for not voting on a proposed health care bill.
During a visit to the Schuylkill Center, Pottsville, the governor called for a vote on Senate Bill 1137, which establishes the Pennsylvania Access to Basic Care Program Fund. Rendell said the program would provide health care for small businesses that don’t offer insurance or employees not covered by their employer.
...
Rendell walked the crowd of about 30 through the various permutations of the bill during the past two years, including the drop in coverage from 500,000 people to fewer than 200,000 and the elimination of a proposed “fair share assessment” that would tax businesses without health care plans.
“The reason I’m going through this is to show you how reasonable we’ve been in reducing our scope,” Rendell said.
..."
"Hawaii ending universal child health care"
-- "Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.
Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan. ..." -- http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlMSr...
making the case for single payer
A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan. …
which is exactly why we need single payer.
but if that's what kills state programs--
ignoring the budget shortfalls all states either have or will have--then it's all doomed to fail because states won't be able to fund --and force --it without Federal funding and laws to force it.
And these are all limited non-single-payer and non-universal programs that don't get rid of private insurers at all, but spur them to fight tooth and nail to protect their profits. Decoupling health from work, and eliminating private insurers, is key---and can't be done state-by-state.