We're repeating the Big Mistake of Clinton Health Care -- It's way too complicated

[Armstead]

Listening to the latest iteration of health care "reform" from the Baucus plan, it seems that health care is running into the same damn iceburg that sunk the ClintonCare plan.

In an effort to placate Big Health Insurance, Republicans, wingnuts and their Demopublican allies, the basic core of Real healthcare reform has been morphed into a Gordian Knot of overcomplexity.

Personally,I think the answer should simple. Medicare for all. Make that and single-payer the core of health insurance. Period.

Okay, in the real world, that seems too "radical" to actually get passed. So compromise is necessary.

The Public Option coupled with strong regulation of private insurance is a huge compromise. But in the muddled mess of the Democratic party, even that relatively tame reform is perceived as "too radical."

And so, we add all these stipulations and terms and conditions to placate those who don't want any real reform....Co-ops,"You may qualify for a subsidy if you are making between $25,000 to $28,000 a year," blah,blah,blah....

AND they want to force people to pay for health insurance without providing any real choice through affordable pubic coverage. What a fricking gift to the health insurance industry.

The result is that we will either get NOTHING or something that is worse than we have now.

Democrats need to Get Back to Basics. A strong public option available to everyone combined with strict regulations of private insurers regarding coverage and rates.

Yes health care is complicated. BUT the principles are simple. But it requires having principles.

[Captain Hilts]

1. But, right now, there are competing Democratic plans. It's maddening. nt

[Armstead]

2. It is maddening.....And one of the reasons we are screwing the pooch

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Computers are complicated

People seem to learn to use and even love using, computers. They never question the circuits or the binary code they just use it to become more productive.

I don't know if that analogy helps, but there it is.

[Armstead]

4. Simplicity of use is the goal of computer products -- It ought to be the same for healthcare

Yes, computers are extremely complicated.

But manufacturers of software and hardware recognize that the only way they can be made usable is to keep the interface as simple as possible. The sinmpler a product is, the more succesful it usually is....They realize that people want results, not to have to learn computer code and advanced electronics to get anything done.

That should be the same goal for health coverage and reform.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. So how do we convince the America people to accept HRC

...the same way they accept the computers they use everyday?

[Armstead]

17. Keeping it simple

You can buy private insurance or a public plan similar to Medicare

Prohibit insurers from denying you care or policies, and require them to provide adequate coverage. (I'd like to see price conbtrols too. But at least there needs to be real competition and pressure from a public plan.)

[goclark]

31. Bingo! It must be really simple and it is not there yet

I will stand firm - it must be ABC, 123
That's why the birthers can go nuts on it now.

Their signs are really simple : ) and we don't have a YES.WE.CAN. sign for HEALTH CARE yet.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. I can explain the Canadian, British, and Japanese plans in 5 sentences each

Canadian:

1. Funded by a combination of taxes and modest individual premiums
2. Administered by the provinces
3. No fees at point of service, no copays, no deductibles, no exclusions, no pre-authorizations
4. Medical care providers are mostly in private practice and you can choose whichever one you want
5. Available to any legal resident of Canada (I'm not sure about the status of visitors--is Canada more like the UK or more like Japan in this respect?)

British:
1. Funded out of general revenues
2. Administered by local authorities
3. No fees at point of service, no copays, no deductibles, no exclusions, no pre-authorizations
4. Medicale care providers are mostly government employees, but there is a parallel private sector, including private insurance, that people may use.
5. Available in full to any legal resident of the UK, and visitors may receive emergency care, although not other kinds, through the NHS

Japanese:
1. Public and private parallel systems funded mostly by premiums. Many employers provide insurance, but others register for the public option at their local city hall.
2. Premiums for the public option are on a sliding scale based on income.
3. There are no deductibles, no exclusions, and no pre-authorizations, but there are co-pays.
4. The national government pays the full cost of catastrophic care and for some chronic, debilitating diseases
5. Available to legal residents of Japan; others pay full cost

See? If Obama wants to sell his health plan to the public, he needs to boil it down to five sentences or less and take all the picky little administrative rules out of the bill.

[bvar22]

47. Even simpler.

You can buy private insurance, or you can buy Medicare.

a One Page Bill.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. See? It IS easy

Just sell it to the public as, "I know a lot of you are delighted with your current insurance. If that's the case, nothing will change for you. Just keep your private insurance. For the rest of you, we will be opening up Medicare to the general public, regardless of age."

I'd like to add that anyone who loses a job involuntarily automatically qualifies for Medicaid and may keep it until s/he has been re-employed for three months.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. I've actually read through an executive summary of HR3200

(which was way too hard to find), and I can't tell how I would be affected.

I KNOW I would be screwed if the Baucus Bill passed, and in that case, I would commit civil disobedience by dropping my private insurance and paying the fine.

[Thrill]

5. Its a complicated issue. There is a reason it hasn't been done in 60yrs

[Armstead]

19. That's the cop-out that's been used for 60 years

That could have been used to prevent medicare, medicaid and most other policies.

The only complexity is the ties between politicians and corporate health industry

[IADEMO2004]

6. So true Link: "The Great Health Care Debate of 1993-94 "

Derek Bok
Harvard University
1998

Snip

Instead of simplifying the discussion by developing a single Democratic plan, several committees and even individual Senators and Representatives took it upon themselves to introduce separate reform plans, creating a daunting array of options for the public to follow and understand. By the end of the Congressional debates, 27 different legislative proposals were advanced, which in turn were identified in the media by 110 different names.

End snip


http://www.upenn.edu/pnc/ptbok.html

[jonnyblitz]

10. bookmarked for later. thanks. one of the most frustrating things

for me in this debate, as it was back in 93-94, is the rightwing always mischaracterizes the DEM plan as socialized medicine despite it never being even REMOTELY CLOSE to that. I would assume"socialized medicine" would be single payer and WHEN have the DEMS offered THAT as an option? :crazy:

[mwb970]

7. But the issue *is* very complicated, isn't it?

Hillary presented a flowchart of her system in 1994 and it was pilloried because it had "so many boxes" and was apparently incomprehensible to republicans. But anything can look "too complicated" if you actually lay out a detailed block diagram of it. I could make a diagram of what is involved in driving to the grocery store and buying cat food that would make it look so complicated it would seem it could never happen.

I just don't accept the idea that solutions to complex problems must themselves be blindingly simple. How could they be?

:shrug:

[Armstead]

20. The principles can be simple

Yes setting up a public coverage plan is a complex undertaking.

But the basic purpose, role and structure can be simple and explained simply.

As you noted, it is not necessary to know all of the interactions between the moving parts in your car or the construction of roads to be able to drive to the store.

[SIMPLYB1980]

29. But your car came with a manual that explains all that.

You can go to your county or city office if you need to see the plans for the road that you drive on. Along with topography, right-of-way information, underground and overground utilities, all complicated information brought to you by your Federal Government. The reason that the insurance company's can screw us is because they keep their contracts so simple that they can get out of them without any effort.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Insurance company contracts are simple?

What planet do you live on?

[SIMPLYB1980]

38. I read mine and I understand it.

That preexisting condition clause is the one that gets them out of all their troubles and lets them drop people, but their are all kinds of other loop holes written into the contract you sign with BCB$. Hell it's only a couple of pages long.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Yes, so they shouldn't be allowed to have a pre-existing condition clause

Problem solved.

[SIMPLYB1980]

45. Huzzah we agree!

:toast:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. But in the Baucus bill, which bans pre-existing conditions

the insurance companies are essentially allowed to charge whatever they please--on a product that we are forced to buy--and get government funding for people below a certain income level to buy it. Furthermore, they are allowed to raise deductibles so high that most people will never even use the insurance. Such a deal!

[SIMPLYB1980]

53. I don't support the Baucus bill as is.nt

[SIMPLYB1980]

26. Yep flow charts can be complicated but helpful.

[SIMPLYB1980]

9. Sorry but Health Care is complicated.

No changing that, but a good deal can still be hammered out.

[Oregone]

11. It doesn't have to be at all

[SIMPLYB1980]

13. I just don't see it that way.

To many people affected. You also need a lot of legalese to close as many loopholes as possible. That requires a lot more than just a simple statement of "Medicare for All" with a signature underneath it.

[Oregone]

16. It may require more, but it doesn't need a 1000 page abortion of a bill

Canada's federal CHA is a mere 16 pages (including cover page & French version)

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/C/C-6.pdf

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. And Conyers' bill is 13 pages, much of which is the boilerplate

found on any Congressional bill.

It's "complicated" only if you're 1) an insurance company executive, 2) someone who is being bribed by an insurance company through campaign contributions, 3) a brainwashed dittohead who believes everything you hear on AM radio, or 4) a DLCer who thinks that the people who voted for Obama because they thought he represented "change" should just lie back and enjoy it.

[Telly Savalas]

57. The CHA establishes a few general standards

then leaves it up to provincial governments to flesh out all the details.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Not if you continue giving away the store to people who don't want to agree with you

no matter what.

The insurance companies LOVE the Baucus plan. It gives them a captive market and lets them charge as much as they want in return for not refusing anyone! What's not to like--if you're an insurance company executive?

[Armstead]

21. Bingo!

The only reason these bills atre so complex is to include all of the goodies and the hedging to placate lobbyists and wingnuts.

[SIMPLYB1980]

22. Getting really tired of all the fail pushers.

:-(

[Oregone]

23. Yes, we are also tired of the Congressional Democrats

[Armstead]

24. The "fail; pushers" are the so-called leaders who sell out ;principles

[SIMPLYB1980]

27. Yes fail pushers. Don't like it stop being one.nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. Do you have anything to say except calling people names?

Explain to me why the insurance companies deserve ANYTHING but contempt.

Explain to me why their interests should be a consideration in crafting health care reform.

[SIMPLYB1980]

39. I don't like my insurance company I want the public option.

They are the system we have now though. We can not, as Obama has explained, start over from scratch. I also think that if in the future a private plan can get me a lower rate and better coverage than the government plan I will likely switch to it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Sure we can start over from scratch

Canada did.

Taiwan did.

And it's unlikely that a private company will give you a better deal UNLESS it has some competition.

Currently, the private insurance companies are competing like the airlines compete: Seeing who can screw the public over and reduce employee salaries and morale the fastest.

[SIMPLYB1980]

44. Would you switch to a private company in the future,

it they could get you a better deal than the Public Option? Sometimes I use UPS because it costs less than the USPS.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. If that were the case, which is unlikely, since I can't imagine UPS

charging only 43 cents to deliver anything anywhere or to handle all the magazine subscriptions in the U.S.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. You'll never convince ideologues that actual policy is complicated

[Armstead]

28. Bullshit

The mechanics of policy are complicated.

The principles are not.

You start with the principle, and proceed from that.

That's how ideology can and should translate to actual policy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. I can't see that the Blue Dogs HAVE any principles

other than getting rewarded by their corporate handlers.

[bvar22]

48. Centrism....

A political dogma unhindered by a foundation of PRINCIPLE.

[xchrom]

12. they are building in the fatal flaws of reform by making them so complicated.

it's opening future doors for conservatives.

it's one reason to back medicare for all.

oh and as far as making it complicated because healthcare is complicated -- we're not talking about healthcare -- we're talking about insurance.

it doesn't have to be complicated -- these aren't stupid people.

[havocmom]

14. Yep. They are complicating it to death

Never occurs to D.C. to use the KISS method for anything. Some problems are best addressed with the most simple, direct response. Beltway toadies (talking to you, Max Baucus)want to confuse and confound issues in order to serve corporate masters instead of citizens.

Oft times, doing the right thing is a very simple matter. It is all the angling for advantage and profits that tends to complicate things.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. That's what I've been saying all along!

In an online comment at the NY Times website, I compared the conservative Dems (such as Max Baucus and the much-diminished Ron Wyden) to medieval astronomers, who made up incredibly complex mathematical formulas to predict the apparent motion of heavenly bodies, all because the only politically acceptable framework was an earth-centered universe. Accepting a sun-centered solar system made the calculations so much easier, but that was officially unmentionable.

Compare and contrast: HR676, Conyers' single payer plan is 13 pages and contains only the essentials: eligibility, coverage, funding, how the bill will be implemented.

HR3200 contains 1000 pages of what should really be administrative rules, not part of the bill, and plenty of targets for the Republicanites to demagogue. And it's not even the final form!

Now we have the Baucus proposal, which is a total giveaway to the insurance companies and allows such monstrosities as charging us people in our fifties as much as 5 times as much in premiums and deductibles as is charged to younger people.

I am beyond disgusted.

[Festivito]

30. ANSWER: Simple, Single payer. /nt

[Marsala]

54. Single payer is a simple concept but setting up the system would be incredibly complicated

Medicare and Medicaid aren't exactly simple themselves, you know.

[Festivito]

55. Not really. HR676. Not as complicated as a bunch of insurance co.s./nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. Right, anyone who thinks that HR3200 HAS TO be complicated

should read HR676.

[slipslidingaway]

32. knr - too complicated and Clinton also took single-payer off the table n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Which is why we're in the mess we're in

Damn it, when will the Dems have the guts and integrity to stand up to the corporations?

Single payer was the right thing then, and it's the right thing now.

Hillary Clinton went behind closed doors with insurance company executives, crafted a plan that gave them everything they wanted, and they still lobbied against it.

Sometimes you just have to tell opponents where to shove their bribes, threats, and blackmail.

Whose side are you on, anyway?

[slipslidingaway]

52. Exactly...but we'll turn around and blame Repubs and Blue Dogs...

when it was the Democrats who discarded the most important weapon against the For Profit companies.

"...Whose side are you on, anyway?"

Indeed!

Obama did not have to agree with them, all he needed to do was let them in the door.

[Vidar]

51. K&R