Big brother is going to get you health care.
And the IRS will be in charge.

So, which of the socialized medicine people are bothered by the fact that WAL-MART is involved in this? Aren't they evil?

It must be nice living in a world where there is a clear distinction between 'good' and 'evil'.

Do let us know when you get back to the real world, Orwell.

I propose universal health freedom. Employers give employees the money they currently spend on health insurance, if applicable. Employees than choose whether to buy health insurance, invest in an HSA, or save the money for another purpose. Because I have confidence in the ability of the American people, I think this will yield the best possible results. I think people do better when they're managing their own money.

I want to do away with all socialized goods and services, including police forces, parks and recreation, education, water supply and sanitation...everything!!

The free market rules!!

Wal-Mart has a vested interest in this because some local laws require insurance be provided if you employ at least a certain number of people. Wal-Mart employs a lot of people, so it must get insurance for its workers, while locally owned stores don't employ a lot of people.

I don't care what their motivations are, though. Let's get single-payer health care, and the sooner the better.

Unfortunately, 2012 is the time that Bush's economic policies are projected to bring a surplus, which makes me think that 2012 is a code for "After Hell freezes over".

I've never understood why GM and Ford and the steel industry hasn't pushed for Medicare for All.

When Wal-Mart seems to be ahead of some of our Democratic Presidential candidates on the issue of universal health care, you know what that makes me feel?

Disgust. Pure disgust.

How about 2010 after the Dems sweep in 2008 and before the 2012 election cycle begins?

I propose universal house freedom. Americans should be able to live in any house they want to. Because I have faith in the American people, I know that they will all choose houses that are appropriate for them. I also propose universal food freedom so that Americans can eat any food they want to and universal scientific freedom so that Americans can obey any laws of science that they want to.

Kevin, it's Union President Andy Stern, not Union boss.

Right now I get health insurance subsidized by my employer. When this system is scrapped in favor of a new national insurance plan, will my salary go up because my employer no longer needs to pay for health insurance? Or will my salary stay the same, and my taxes go up to pay for national health?

I think it's important in this interim period while the employer-supplied health system is dying that the employer health insurance subsidy be explicitly counted as salary (and taxed). When national health takes over, the salary cut will be visible.

I second Bob Smith's comment, Kevin, and I'm surprised at you. The term "union boss" is meant to imply "mob boss", the other common situation in which the word "boss" is used. It might have been appropriate in the old days, when some unions had highly undemocratic procedures, but I am annoyed when I see progressive bloggers adopting the language of the right ("fisking" is my other pet peeve).

This is it. The end times. Gather your loved ones unto you.

to push for universal healthcare (of an undefined nature) by around 2012.

Thank God none of these wankers were in charge during the depression or WWII.

All of these people just want to kick the can down the road rather than fix the problem now. It's not leadership - it's dithering.

All of these people just want to kick the can down the road rather than fix the problem now.

Wapiti, 2012 is only 5 years away. That's not "Arsenal of Democracy" tempo but it's still pretty aggressive.

I love how healthcare opponents immediately dissolve it all into wankery about bureaucracy, tax cuts/raises, and the intricate details of the transition, to make it all seem Too Complicated and Expensive to bother with. As though our current setup was not both completely insane and insanely expensive.

I mean, if we're going to wank, at least have the net result be affordable healthcare. Not the mess we have now.

And I don't care who pushes or doesn't for it. It's an idea whose time came a long time ago. And 2012 is too long. We need it yesterday.

I am glad to see this. I have been confounded over the years wondering why we have this absurd ancient employer based system. Why not give every business in America a huge tax (of sorts) break and relieve them of the burden of overpricing products and services because they have to figure in the cost of healthcare. This is something much better shared amongst the whole population. And while I continue to get ill when listening to W, his proposal to means test medicare in a small way is long overdue and another component of true reform. Rich people dont need Social Security or Medicare and the budget of the US should not be paying for it for them. Universal health care and means tested retirement benefits. We CAN solve out problems if people open their minds a bit.

I'm actually very excited the companies like GM are starting to get on the universal insurance bandwagon. People (especially the trolls of this forum) seem to think that socialized medicine will lead to a socialist America. What these companies are realizing is that socialized medicine is actually good for a capitalist economy.

I don't understand how government-sanctioned health care is going to remove the price of healthcare from the cost of our products. If companies do not insure their workers they will of course save costs, but they will have to pay higher taxes to the government for the government-sactioned health care. These new taxes will be reflected back in the cost of their products. It's six of one or a half-dozen of the other.

I do realize that the US pays far more per capita for health care than other countries with government sanctioned health care, so if we do get single payer medical care there are some savings to be had there. So perhaps taxes will not be raised quite as much as corporate health expenses will be reduced. But I would expect it to be a small savings, overall.

Okay, look, Republicans, big business, everyone on the right is starting to see UHC coming and be ready to commit to it, either without specifics or with demands that it be a personal purchase mandate and public subsidy of the existing private insurance industry.

Which underlines why I think we need to stop settling for commitments from Democrats to the abstract goal of universal coverage, and start talking about how, before the right wing has taken the goal of universal coverage, and completely defined the dialogue over what "universal coverage" should look like.

Wapiti is right. If our current Democratic candidates had been in charge during the depression and WWII, the Germans and Japanese would have divided a pretty darn depressed third world country straight down the Mississippi river. John F. Kennedy "wrote" a book about his political heros called "Profiles in Courage." Our current front runner could write a book about her heros called "Profiles in Crass Political Triangulation or How to Get Elected and Re-elected Without Having Actually Ever Stood For Or Done Anything."

The sad thing is the book would probably contain profiles of several of her current opponents.

I have to say that John Edwards, at least, has started a health care discussion. I hope we all keep talking and eventually something gets done.

Cooperative and altruistic behaviour is the foundation of a viable ecosystem,

"People weren't really looking at the big picture of why a group of species is found together. Often it's because of the positive effect of some other species," says Andrew Altieri, a marine biologist at Northeastern University's Marine Science Center in Nahant, Massachusetts. These so-called "foundation" species can underpin an entire ecosystem by creating a suitable habitat for all the other species that live there.

New campaign slogan for Democrats: "The Democratic Party- almost as progressive as Wal-Mart"!

Only it's really not funny.

Edwards's "plan" is a pile of mealy-mouthed triangulating crap. And he's my least unfavorite among the contenders... I used to bash the people who voted for Nader but I'm starting to understand where they're coming from.

I don't understand how government-sanctioned health care is going to remove the price of healthcare from the cost of our products. If companies do not insure their workers they will of course save costs, but they will have to pay higher taxes to the government for the government-sactioned health care. These new taxes will be reflected back in the cost of their products. It's six of one or a half-dozen of the other.

The shift from employer mandates and expectations to a public, tax-funded system would shift the burden of supplying healthcare from labor-heavy businesses to the general tax base. It would increase the international competitiveness of the kind of businesses that produce the most jobs per dollar of business volume (and potentially decrease the competitiveness of other types of businesses, who presumably would pay more of the total healthcare costs through taxes.)

It would also encourage (compared to the status quo) hiring, since healthcare costs would be a general cost to the tax base, not a cost to whoever employed a worker.

I do realize that the US pays far more per capita for health care than other countries with government sanctioned health care, so if we do get single payer medical care there are some savings to be had there. So perhaps taxes will not be raised quite as much as corporate health expenses will be reduced. But I would expect it to be a small savings, overall.

Actually, I think you'll find that the existing US per capita government spending on healthcare (leaving out the entirety of private spending) is already substantially higher than the total per capita spending of most first world democracies with universal coverage; IIRC, the US per GDP government healthcare spending is only slightly lower than the per GDP total healthcare spending of first world governments with universal coverage.

I'd expect, in the long run, the savings to be quite large compared to maintaining the status quo system, though initially transition costs on working out the inefficiencies deeply embedded in the current system will slow the realization of large savings.

New campaign slogan for Democrats: "The Democratic Party- almost as progressive as Wal-Mart"!

Only it's really not funny.

Edwards's "plan" is a pile of mealy-mouthed triangulating crap.

Which, still, puts its ahead of the SEIU/Wal-Mart/etc. commitment, which is to nothing specific at all.

Drum: One of the companies joining him is Wal-Mart.

No suprise there. Universal health care would likely remove the healthcare-expense-and-bad-PR-monkey from Wal-Mart's back.

American Hawk on February 7, 2007 at 11:45 AM:

I think people do better when they're managing their own money.

Hmmm...Hawkie must not work at a bank, brokerage, insurance company, or anything remotely related to the financial services industry.

reino on February 7, 2007 at 11:56 AM:

I also propose...universal scientific freedom so that Americans can obey any laws of science that they want to.

Too funny, yet unfortunately in the process of real-world implementation...

I know I'm being too hard on Edwards, who at least kicked off the discussion. But cripes, when something like what he put out currently marks the outer limits of the Democratic position... that's just sad.

Universal healthcare run by the federal government seems alluring, but can the federal government be trusted to run such a system? On one hand, the federal government often finds itself in the pockets of the wealthy and powerful, and such a system may end up as a device delivering benefits to these interest groups on the back of the American tax payer.

On the other hand, such a system might succumb to the same fate as Social Security, in which constituents demand more and more entitlement, driving up long term costs. Increased federal power always seems like a tempting solution, but, as men are not angels, many federal programs end up failing to do what they intended to.

The real answer to healthcare lies in the States and the individuals. The States should be the laboratories; if one State wants socialized care, if another State wants mandates on individuals, so be it. The benefit of State projects is that a problem is tackled in multiple ways, and that if a State is corrupted by special interests or simply bad ideas, the whole nation won't pay the price for it.

Individuals, too, have a role to play. Many health problems occur because of factors individuals can control. An individual that smokes, drinks excessively, eats wrong, or fails to exercise is more likely to have health problems in the future. The more people we have leading healthy lives, the less demand there will be for health services, and prices will go down. Also, because it will be less likely individuals will be sick, insurance prices will go down.

Federal power is alluring, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and federal power has often proved this. We should not head down that path when there are other solutions available.

It's simple. Put a mandate on the industry to insure 98% of the population with full coverage that costs less than 10% of household income.

Within 2 years.

If they can't do that, we put in a UHC system that blows them out of the water, because they're not doing the job that we're paying them to do. But I'm sure they 'll be successful..that's the power of private industry, right?

but they will have to pay higher taxes to the government for the government-sactioned health care. These new taxes will be reflected back in the cost of their products. It's six of one or a half-dozen of the other.
I do realize that the US pays far more per capita for health care than other countries with government sanctioned health care, so if we do get single payer medical care there are some savings to be had there. So perhaps taxes will not be raised quite as much as corporate health expenses will be reduced. But I would expect it to be a small savings, overall.
Posted by: David on February 7, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

You think it would be that way but its not. The savings are quite substantial.

Take a look at this study from the univeristy of Main.
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

A big part of the saving is elimination of management layers. But larger savings will not occur unless the states are allowed to negotiate the best possible price with the pharmaceutical companies and some procedure are not covered.

brian, we currently have by far the most inefficient "system" in the world- the one that does the last while consuming the most resources. There's nowhere to go but up.

Universal healthcare run by the federal government seems alluring, but can the federal government be trusted to run such a system?

Its trusted to run a massive military, a wide array of police forces, a court system with wide-ranging authority to overrule state courts, so why not?

On one hand, the federal government often finds itself in the pockets of the wealthy and powerful

And private insurers don't?

and such a system may end up as a device delivering benefits to these interest groups on the back of the American tax payer.

And the present American hybrid healthcare system isn't?

On the other hand, such a system might succumb to the same fate as Social Security

Becoming the most popular and successful program of the federal government, which anti-government crusaders tilt at and are thwarted at every turn by widespread public support for the program?

I'm sorry, this is a negative, somehow?

Increased federal power always seems like a tempting solution, but, as men are not angels, many federal programs end up failing to do what they intended to.

As do many state programs. As do many areas of the economy that are left largely in private hands to supposedly promote "freedom" and "efficiency", like, for instance, our status quo healthcare system, where the average citizen has rather limited practical freedom, and the system as a whole is (by comparison to the rest of the developed world) atrociously inefficient.

The real answer to healthcare lies in the States and the individuals. The States should be the laboratories; if one State wants socialized care, if another State wants mandates on individuals, so be it. The benefit of State projects is that a problem is tackled in multiple ways, and that if a State is corrupted by special interests or simply bad ideas, the whole nation won't pay the price for it.

The problem here is that people move between the states quite a bit, a business operate in many states; leaving healthcare to the current mess of federal, state, and private programs and mandates drives up the cost through the multiplicity of different systems that providers, employers, and healthcare consumers are forced to interact with or are impacted by.

Individuals, too, have a role to play. Many health problems occur because of factors individuals can control. An individual that smokes, drinks excessively, eats wrong, or fails to exercise is more likely to have health problems in the future. The more people we have leading healthy lives, the less demand there will be for health services, and prices will go down. Also, because it will be less likely individuals will be sick, insurance prices will go down.

Yes, people living healthy lifestyles is a good thing. That has little to do with healthcare policy except insofar as that policy can actually help people do that, but you aren't suggesting anything along those lines.

Federal power is alluring, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and federal power has often proved this.

As has withholding specific areas from federal involvment based on the abstract idea that local control is best, such as the approach that preserved slavery for the first several decades of the existence of the United States.

We should not head down that path when there are other solutions available.

You have not shown that there are other solutions available to the problems that federal action is recommended to resolve in healthcare, indeed, your entire rant seems oblivious to the problems which universal healthcare is proposed to address.

So, which of the socialized medicine people are bothered by the fact that WAL-MART is involved in this? Aren't they evil?

Hold on, everybody. The flip side of this one will occur to him in a minute. Then Orwell and his fellows will suddenly shift from defending Wal-Mart as a champion of free enterprise to bashing them for being socialists.

Universal healthcare run by the federal government seems alluring, but can the federal government be trusted to run such a system? On one hand, the federal government often finds itself in the pockets of the wealthy and powerful, and such a system may end up as a device delivering benefits to these interest groups on the back of the American tax payer.
Posted by: brian

Take a look at Medicare and the VA system to see how the government would do it, and how they would deliver healthcare for much lower administrative costs than private industry.

On the other hand, such a system might succumb to the same fate as Social Security, in which constituents demand more and more entitlement, driving up long term costs.

Those of us who have been paying into SS the last 30 years or more only want what was promised when they raised our witholding taxes in the 1980's to create surpluses to cover the inherent deficits projected beyond about 2020. If you want to default on that promise, then at least stop the over-taxation.

Kevin - Please don't refer to union leaders as "bosses." That's right out of the Republican smear-word book.

"One of the companies joining him is Wal-Mart."

Of course they are. Wal-Mart's wages and health care options are so bad that they already encourage their employees to take advantage of Medicaid to cover their medical bills. If all employers can rely on a government supported health care system, that policy won't smell so bad.

Wal-Mart's support per se doesn't turn UHC from a good idea to a bad one, but cmdicely is right - it's time for Democrats to get out in front on this issue, before the debate gets framed in such a way that the implementation of UHC looks like the implementation of the prescription drug benefit.

Brian, I think you need to be given an award for being able to include such a vast number of over used generalizations and trite bumper-sticker phrases in one single post.

Congrats, man, you rock!!

I'm not going to cheer Wal-mart being in favor of UHC until I see what their def of UHC is.

It is time to admit that the employer-based health care system is dead -- a relic of the industrial economy

Isn't employer-based health care an important part of Edward's proposals?

Be careful what you ask for in UHC. It ain't gonna be Medicare for everyone.

Business is going to wake up and realize this is a huge win for them and get behind it. The problem is, as business is run by Repubs, their version is going to screw the people and take care of the insurance companies.

* Busnisses cut health costs and keep wages stationary.

* Workers get an expensive, basically worthless coverage, from the govment

* Private insurance companies provide the "makeup" insurance, that will be a necessity to everyone over the age of 30, at a cost that will make current copays look like a garage sale bargain.

We will get the worst of both systems. I can't wait.

Bush admits to global warming and corporate America wants socialized medicine!!!! Holy crap! The Christofascists are right: it is the end! Jesus is returning!!!

Wal-Mart probably sees this as taking away one of the biggest weapons its opponents use - that they don't offer realistic health insurance, and their employees tend to use low-income subsidized healthcare from the state.

Of course, if their employees still use subsidized healthcare, it won't make their position any better ^-^

Nations like Taiwan and France actually saw they were spending less than before when they switched to a more efficient form of socialized medicine instead of the inefficient "free market" form of health insurance company bureaucracy. That means more money in your pocket you wouldn't need to spend on healthcare. That also means more manufacturing jobs in the US.

Bush wants to punish companies that care about their employees.

SO now we have an obviously failed labor union boss, Mr. Stern saying - yeah, put it on the taxpayers backs.

Of course Wal-Mart agrees, their employees have never been anything but a bunch of commodities, people without rights and Wal-Mart has no concern, and its too bad Kelly Services seems to see it this way too. Does Kelly care about their temps any more than Wal-Mart cares about their employees - cause sure doesn't look like it.

Just another look at how Bush is hacking away at a government for the people and by the poeple in exchange for a corporate controlled goverment. It's not freedom - its disregard for human beings, disregard for the rights of people.

We are lossing our democracy.

I think union boss Andy Stern should be fired since he is stupid beyond rescue. This is not what unions are intended to do, tell the labors to pick up the tab. I'm for health care for everyone but we should find a way to make companies like Wal-Mart and other corporations pay the bill.

Somewhat weird way the NY Times covered that news: the piece emphasizes the question of Wal-Mart vs. SEIU antagonism and how it will continue despite the alliance on this issue. When it would seem the far more important question is just the fact that incredibly powerful corporations and a pretty powerful union alliance are now going all-out together for universal non-employer-based health insurance.

"...Wal-Mart's support per se doesn't turn UHC from a good idea to a bad one, but cmdicely is right - it's time for Democrats to get out in front on this issue, before the debate gets framed in such a way that the implementation of UHC looks like the implementation of the prescription drug benefit.
Posted by: Osprey on February 7, 2007 at 1:18 PM

"...* Private insurance companies provide the "makeup" insurance, that will be a necessity to everyone over the age of 30, at a cost that will make current copays look like a garage sale bargain.

We will get the worst of both systems. I can't wait."
Posted by: TT on February 7, 2007 at 2:35 PM

The deal here is to watch out for protection schemes coming from the private insurance industry and to prevent it
from becoming a barnacle on the entire populace that only lets businesses off the hook for health care costs
and sticks it to the average Joe with a Byzantine system that in the end isn't any better. Sure, let the private
insurors do true Cadillac care for a "Medigap" price, but only on the top 10-25% income groups, not extort premiums for decent
care from the vast majority of the population.

Whatever. Nothing that's done in the USofA will eliminate the inefficiencies in the medical care financing system. Too many people are employed in the financing side of the medical care system. And it is that part, that is the problem.

Woo hoo!

At last they've seen the light (money) and are willing to move toward improvements.

Sure, they'll ensure they make out like banditos, but that's okay so long as the working folks do better too. If everybody wins I can live with that.

Woo hoo!

Now we just have to negotiate with the Devil in the details.