Greenfield: Health plan could jump-start a Romney presidential bid

[Pryderi]

Wasn't Hillary way ahead of the pack in terms of a National Health Plan?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/greenfield.romney.health/index.html

Greenfield: Health plan could jump-start a Romney presidential bid

By Jeff Greenfield
CNN Senior Analyst

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Massachusetts is close to adopting a plan for near-universal health coverage for all its citizens -- funded by a mix of individuals, businesses, and government subsidies. If Gov. Mitt Romney decides to seek the presidency, this plan is likely to attract the attention of states across the country; it not only suggests a way out of the most daunting fiscal pressure the states face, but the near-unanimous votes in both houses of the Legislature also suggest a way to find consensus out of conflict.

There's a potentially powerful political element to this plan. It could well be the centerpiece of a GOP presidential run by Mitt Romney. Why? Because it fits a pattern of governor-candidates who point to their Statehouse record as a way of appealing across party lines.

The fact that governors have done better in modern times as presidential candidates is common knowledge. Four of the last five presidents have been governors and former governors; and after an era where governors-as-presidential-nominees were losers (Alf Landon in '36, Tom Dewey in '44 and '48, Adlai Stevenson in '52), all but one in this era has been elected president. What these winners have had in common is a record -- or at least, a claim -- as governor to have crossed ideological lines.

When former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter ran in 1976, he boasted that he was "not from Washington," a big plus in the post-Watergate era. He also talked of cutting and streamlining state government, a pitch usually made by Republicans.

[AX10]

1. Greenfield is supposed to be a liberal?

:wtf:? These days, he is hyping up any Repug he can find for any lame reason.

[xray s]

2. The Massachusetts plan is the wrong plan

Using tax dollars to subsidize an inefficient, corporate for-profit insurance industry is ludicrous.

Why should we pay for a system that wastes 25% on bureaucracy, when the public sector can do the job for 1/10 of the administrative costs? Why should we use our tax dollars to pay for multi million dollar CEO salaries?

Democrats should oppose the Romney plan. (Oh... and Hillary's health care plan had the same fatal flaw. Medicare for All. That's the solution.)

[area51]

4. Statement from PNHP

Here's a press release from the group Physicians for a National Health Program.

<snip>

"... the linchpin of the plan is the false assumption that uninsured people will be able to find affordable health plans. A typical group policy in Massachusetts costs about $4500 annually for an individual and more than $11,000 for family coverage. A wealthy uninsured person could afford that — but few of the uninsured are wealthy. A 25 year old fitness instructor can find a cheaper plan. But few of the uninsured are young and healthy. According to Census Bureau figures, only 12.4% of the 748,000 uninsured in Massachusetts are both young enough to qualify for low-premium plans (under age 35) and affluent enough (incomes greater than 499% of poverty) to readily afford them. Yet even this 12.4% figure may be too high if insurers are allowed to charge higher premiums for persons with health problems; only half of uninsured persons in those age and income categories report that they are in excellent health."

"... the legislation will do nothing to contain the skyrocketing costs of care in Massachusetts — already the highest in the world. Indeed, it gives new infusions of cash to hospitals and private insurers. Predictably, rising costs will force more and more employers to drop coverage, while state coffers will be drained by the continuing cost increases in Medicaid. Moreover, when the next recession hits, tax revenues will fall just as a flood of newly unemployed people join the Medicaid program or apply for the insurance subsidies promised in the reform legislation. The program is simply not sustainable over the long — or even medium — term."

[xray s]

6. thanks

the pnhp is doing great work.

I am tired of hearing that extending Medicare to cover every American is a great idea but no one has the will to actually do it.

The American people have the will to do it. It's our politicians that are beholden to the corporate system of health insurance administration that lack the will.

[Gloria]

3. Sounds similar to what Kerry offered...in fact, most Democratic

plans talk in terms of a mix of business, etc.

Clark wants a single payer, but says this sort of "incremental" stuff is need to get there, as we often hear.
(Namely because Congress won't vote for a single payer plan....)

Be a shame if we got stuck with another Republican who's "gotten religion" all of a sudden (RW religion) and wins an election using a Democratic issue!!!!

[xray s]

7. I was glad to hear Clark endorse Medicare for All in NH

I understand his warning that we have to do it right.

Here is my idea. Start by offering American citizens and business the CHOICE to buy into Medicare coverage, regardless of the age of the recipient. Make these bloated corporate run insurance systems compete with the economically efficent Medicare system.

[snowbear]

5. I saw Greenfield with Wolf earlier...

He was rambling on about how this would be a major feather in the cap for Romney, and Wolf said .. "yeah, that's considering it actually worked -- and that's a big if"

I had to actually say, "dayum, good point there Blitzer!" http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/duh!.gif