Why not have a simple (less than 1,000 page) plan that is single-payer? It seems to me that

[T Wolf]

the (purposeful) complexity of the Democratic plan being pushed by the WH and Congressional Dems makes it very easy to attack.

OTOH, if it was a simple and simply stated plan for single-payer, universal care, it could be more easily defended. No more "on page 875 it says the government will kill old people", etc.

#1 - all care recommended by your doctor is covered.

#2 - NO government bureaucrat will make any decision or have any input into the medical care you and your doctor decide on.

#3 - In contrast to private insurance, NO corporate executive will get rich by denying you care.

#4 - The total cost of this program is less than what the United States is currently paying for health insurance.

#5 - Anyone who tells you something different is lying to you.

See. Easy to define and easy to defend against the bullshit spewing from the pukes and the DINOs. I also think the simple approach would appeal to the majority of people who are distrustful of the government (thanks to the repuke meme of the last 29 years). This would not convince everyone, but enough to win the day. And it would get us to the correct goal without wasting time (and lives) inching our way to join the rest of the world.

[Eric J in MN]

1. HR 676 is a single payer plan, and less than 1,000 pages.

http://www.hr676.org/

[Wapsie B]

3. Does this have a realistic chance of going anywhere?

With all the rhetoric being thrown around about compromises and back room deals with the insurance companies it's hard for me to know which way this thing is headed.

[Eric J in MN]

8. HR 676 will hopefully get voted on by the full House,

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was promised on the floor of the House that it would (by Henry Waxman speaking for Nancy Pelosi), but I'm not predicting it will pass.

http://pubrecord.org/politics/3105/pelosi-allow-floor-single-payer/comment-page-1/

[BattyDem]

2. Have you read HR676?

It's easy to read and easy to understand. No double-talk, no confusing language, no endless sections and sub-sections ... it's very simple. If they presented this instead of the convoluted plan they came up with, there would be no confusion at all.

http://johnconyers.com/hr676text

[T Wolf]

6. Yes. But by pushing the monstrosity the corps want and not 676, the Dems are taking the hardest

road to a dead end.

Just plain stupid. Or, maybe not, considering their goal of protecting their corporate owners.

The only way around this (tho I fear it is too late, already) would have been for the President (you know, the one who can command attention simply by walking into a room) to take the lead for single-payer. But he didn't and we are fucked.

[BattyDem]

11. I totally agree with you.

:-(

[dhpgetsit]

4. Agreed

Single payer is so much simpler.

It should be illegal for anyone to make a profit at providing basic health care.

[mike_c]

5. HR 676...

...with something like 80 co-sponsors or so would fit the bill nicely.

[stuball111]

7. Seems to be similar to the Canadian Health act

At a glance. What the opponents of single payer know, but aren't telling their followers,is that a single payer plan would probably pay for itself in a few years, and would not be dependent on the sale of bonds for long. Also, that the money freed up from the lack of a profit motive would go back into the pockets of the consumer. This would create a tsunami of wealth in the country of let's say, at least 10 grand a year to those paying for private insurance if the average was 12-15 grand in premiums. That would, in turn, generate more tax revenue for the country, allowing for yet more growth, and revenue to pay for things like health care and education. Also, small and even large business would find a windfall of saved costs to put back into their business, giving better wages, expansion, and yet more tax revenue. It doesn't take an "economist" with a degree to see that when money is freed up, it has to go somewhere, and it would have to go right back into the system through the consumer. GM and the other automakers would find a load off their pockets, and would be back in business in a few short months, as long as they operated smart this time. The country would be healthier, the housing market would rebound, and the only thing that would go down the tubes would be the insurance companies, which would survive if they were forced to be a little more creative and less greedy. The work pool from insurance companies would be swallowed up by the administrators of the new system, so the job loss would be bearable. All this good news is shadowed by the fact that a few big companies and shareholders are facing extinction. Yes, it would be the end of an industry, but an out dated, and useless one. The proponents of capitalism should be overjoyed at the prospect of such wealth being set loose into the market place, but they are stubbornly hanging on to a sinking ship, screaming things like "socialism" and killing grandpa. Well this would be the dawn of a new era for capitalism if you ask me, and right along the lines of what this country is all about... seems weird they'd be against capitalism for others, but, maybe not.

[Wapsie B]

9. It just makes too much sense not to pass it.

That is if insurance companies weren't calling the shots in all this.

[stuball111]

10. Yep, My Friend,

But for a few, common sense is a short commodity. They KNOW that it's a good thing, but money trumps good for some in society.

[Wapsie B]

12. Belated welcome to DU!

[stuball111]

14. Thanks,Wapsie..

this is a cool place... good way to keep up o date and learn stuff..

[iverglas]

13. and here's that Act for anybody who wants to see

Obviously the implementation by the provinces is more detailed, but the principles are here.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-6/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-6.html

CANADIAN HEALTH CARE POLICY

Primary objective of Canadian health care policy

3. It is hereby declared that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.

PURPOSE

Purpose of this Act

4. The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services provided under provincial law that must be met before a full cash contribution may be made.

PROGRAM CRITERIA

Program criteria

7. In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, the health care insurance plan of the province must, throughout the fiscal year, satisfy the criteria described in sections 8 to 12 respecting the following matters:

(a) public administration;

(b) comprehensiveness;

(c) universality;

(d) portability; and

(e) accessibility.

There are then sections providing for how it is determined whether a province has met those standards

EXTRA-BILLING AND USER CHARGES

Extra-billing

18. In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, no payments may be permitted by the province for that fiscal year under the health care insurance plan of the province in respect of insured health services that have been subject to extra-billing by medical practitioners or dentists.

User charges

19. (1) In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, user charges must not be permitted by the province for that fiscal year under the health care insurance plan of the province.

And the definition:

"physician services" means any medically required services rendered by medical practitioners;

There's no reason that a plan in the US couldn't allow individuals to buy private insurance, and providers to accept private insurance, that they think would get them benefits beyond the universal public plan.

It's bad policy for a number of reasons, but a two-tier system is sustainable in the short to medium term, as long as the public plan is fully funded, and would placate any objecters. Who would of course have to keep paying taxes for the public plan and be able to use it whenever they wanted. ;)