Mixing and matching and mandates are far less realistic than universal health care

[Armstead]

Of the candidates, the only one who really has a realistic proposal is Dennis Kucinich (in my opinion, of course).

I say this on both a political and pragmatic level.

The efforts by other candidates to "tweak" the system will either fail to get past the starting gate or will result in a mess.

1)MANDATES -- Forcing people to buy insurance in a privately oriented system is the worst of all worlds.It is unfair to the people who can't afford it. And it will not remove the major political barrier to universal coverage. Do you really think that the segment of the population who are afraid or stubbornly resistant to universal coverage are going to go along with being told they have to buy private insurance or face the IRS?.....As for the risk-pool argument, if you have a patchwork of private and semi-public health plans, the costs and benefits are going to be very thinly spread out among them all.

2)SUBSIDIES -- That will create a bureaucratic nightmare. Plus, it is going to stigmatize people who work hard but don't make enough to buy insurance. It's like being told you have to apply for food stamps if you can't afford to buy the best food. And if you like Halliburton sucking on the government teat, you'll love subsidies to private insurance companies.

3)REGULATION OF PRIVATE INSURANCE -- Face it. We shouldn't blame insurance companies for fighting fundamental reform through regulation. They're in business to make a buck. And the only way they can make a buck is by gouging us. Insurance is a risky business, and if you limit the ability to cover your assets, it is not worth being in that business. The whole notion of for-profit health insurance is contrary to the social goal of providing everyone with adequate coverage....So, unless you put the foxes in charge of the henhouse, there is no way to satisfy their requirements as businesses and provide affordable care for everyone.

Despite how nicey-nice the plans of Edwards, Obama and Clinton seem, the whole notion of a mixed system is still a version of the basic mismatch between profit and social goals that has ruined the healthcare system here.

So why not go for the gusto, and really sell a plan in which an approach similar to Medicare is applied across the board? It will ultimtely not be any more of a political battle than these half-measures. And it would do a lot of good if it were to actually go through.

Also, if it makes the "free marketeers" happy, private insurance could still be available, if they can come up with sellable products that supplement a basic universal plan.

[cali]

1. In the best of all possible worlds we'd go immediately to single payer univeral

it ain't that world. You couldn't get it through Congess. Not to say that your objections to the mixed programs proposed by most of the candidates aren't partly on target, but there's a greater chance of covering more of the 40+ million uninsured in this country that way, then trying to go from the private system we now have to single payer in one leap.

[Armstead]

2. IMO the roadblock to mandated insurance is the same

Frankly, any attempt to change it is a calculated risk.

[Adelante]

3. I agree

Go for the gusto. Congress is going to fight it out anyway and who knows what we may end up with? Start at the top not halfway when you're only going to have to work down anyways.

[DCKit]

4. Confusion breeds PROFIT. Look at the Medicare "model" n/t

[Armstead]

5. That's because it is a mix-and match system

[DCKit]

7. Um, yeah. I said "PROFIT" not "SAVINGS"

Don't read like a Republic!

[sandnsea]

6. Many states already have subsidies

And a variety of state health programs. Funding them with federal money won't create any new bureaucracy for most of them. Mine is through BC/BS and nobody knows whether I get a subsidy or not.