In this case, those 15 words are “I used to oppose Universal Health Care… then I lost my job and got sick!”
Yes, that’s right, I’m on about universal health again.
First, let’s check in with Paul Krugman, who basically says that it’s nice of the Governator to try, but that his plan should not be a substitute for a national health care system, and furthermore his plan will create 3 new intrusive bureaucracies. Way to shrink Big Government, ya? A couple of choice paragraphs:
There are three main reasons why many Americans lack health insurance. Some healthy people decide to save money and take their chances (and end up being treated in emergency rooms, at the public’s expense…); some people are too poor to afford coverage; some people can’t get coverage … because of pre-existing conditions.
Single-payer insurance solves all three problems at a stroke. The Schwarzenegger plan, by contrast, is a series of patches. It forces everyone to buy health insurance…; it provides financial aid to low-income families…; and it … basically [requires insurance companies] to sell insurance to everyone at the same price.
He follows this up by asking why we have to make it so darn complicated.
Elsewhere on the political spectrum we have Lou Dobbs, who spends several paragraphs in the middle of an editorial on states rights versus federalsim to tell us:
As more companies drop their employee health-care coverage, the number of Americans without health insurance rises each year. Now nearly 47 million Americans — including 8 million children — have no health insurance, and the only action to deal with this crisis has originated with state governments.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney last summer advanced the healthcare debate when he rolled out a proposal to bring mandatory coverage to everyone in his state. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week announced a universal health-care plan for his state, which would join Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont in passing such universal coverage laws. Fifteen other states and the District of Columbia are all considering similar proposals, despite the costs associated with the plans.
It’s not enough that the United States possesses the best medical care in the world if all our citizens cannot have access to that care.
Notice that he calls the Massachusetts plan “mandatory” coverage. Notice also that he gives a nod to the idea that employers are not part of the answer; the 8 million uninsured kids he cites — just like our unemployed woman in the cartoon — don’t have an employer.
Sprinkled between these commentaries, we have companies trying to bring health care in house with on-site clinics. It isn’t a new trend. I am not sure this is a good idea. There are things you might not want your boss knowing about your medical care! What if your company isn’t exactly the most scrupulous? Where does the doctor’s loyalties lie?
Oh, and don’t forget, experts still think a bird flu pandemic is a serious threat that would “challenge”our health system.
The longer I go on, the more I think that Medicare for all is the answer. The insurance companies will still get to make oodles of money on supplemental policies, and everyone will be covered. If the political will is lacking, we should at the very least implement a MediKids program to cover everyone under 18, and in an ideal world every full time student up to age 25.
Our elected officials need to stop doing the politically expedient thing and start doing the right thing.
In closing, What’s Wrong with Real ID; on a related note, can you prove you are a citizen? If not a simple traffic stop may land you in a foreign country (remember, folks, a drivers license does not prove what nation you are a citizen of, it only proves you can legally drive a car, that’s why the I-9 form you had to fill out the first day of work wanted a Social Security Card or Birth Certificate too); the New York Times wonders maybe tax receipts would be up if the IRS spent more time auditingbig businesses and less time crawling through Joe Average’s records; Preachers and scientists agree, saving the planet would be a Good Thing, and in fact none other than Stephen Hawking says climate change is worse than terrorism; buying beer for minors is a bad idea, but what about buying weapons for those who can’t?; wow, somebody is actually checking the accuracy of the No-Fly List and deleting errors; Alberto Gonzales says “Ok, we’ll pretend to follow the law”; The House of Representatives says “You know, Big Oil, if you are really making that much money, you won’t be needing these subsidies”; and finally, it sounds like Mr. Bernanke is a real conservative, the kind that thinks we ought to reign in the national debt. Who knew?
(let me preface this comment with an apology for the heinous typographical errors in a previous comment – gomen)
“yer not frum around heeah, are yeew boy?”
I am somewhat ambivalent about the REAL ID thang. It seems but a matter of time (and incremental increases in computer time and equipment) before states are completly “linked,” informationally, anyway (not that I see that as a good thing, merely, inevitable – boy how’s that for resignation?.) Now with the requirement of a passport to travel anywhere in North America the noose is further closed. So currently there are (at least) three levels of beauracracy requiring their own particular brand of identification. Part of me feels that if the REAL ID supplants one or all three of those forms then our beaucracy will be somewhat streamlined and therefore it will of some benefit… the realist part of me says that it will just be layered atop the previous paperwork… welcome to the machine…
i ph34r th3 3vil /-/4s 74k3n 7h3 sh0r77 0//3!
d00d, u r not teh flu3n7 in 1337.