Share

Kennedy Bill Would Make Employers Provide Care

by: Erica Werner  |  The Associated Press

photo
A Kennedy sponsored health care bill being circulated would limit profits for insurance companies and offer a public "affordable access" option. (Photo: Susan Walsh / Associated Press file).

    Washington - Employers would be required to offer health care to employees or pay a penalty - and all Americans would be guaranteed health insurance - under a draft bill circulated Friday by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's health committee.

    The bill would provide subsidies to help poor people pay for care, guarantee patients the right to select any doctor they want and require everyone to purchase insurance, with exceptions for those who can't afford to.

    Insurers would be required to provide a basic level of care and cover all comers, without turning people away because of pre-existing conditions or other reasons. Insurance companies' profits would be limited, and private companies would have to compete with a new public "affordable access" plan that would for the first time offer government-sponsored health care to Americans not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or other programs.

    It all adds up to sweeping changes in how America's health care system operates and aims to achieve President Barack Obama's goal of holding down costs and extending health coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans.

    It's already been known that Kennedy's health committee was planning to pursue most of the concepts outlined in the draft of the bill, called the "American Health Choices Act." But it's the first actual bill language to circulate since Congress began working on Obama's health care overhaul.

    Congressional and interest groups officials cautioned that the language in the document was not final.

    "It's a draft of a draft. HELP democrats are still actively talking amongst themselves and their Republican colleagues," said Anthony Coley, spokesman for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that's chaired by Kennedy, D-Mass.

    Kennedy's committee is scheduled to begin voting on the legislation later this month, as is the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax issues. The House also will get to work soon to meet Obama's goal of passing legislation through both chambers by August, so the president can sign a bill in fall.

    The draft bill sets up a system of state-level "exchanges," where people would go to shop for insurance plans and which would also oversee the marketplace. The federal-state Medicaid program for the poor would be greatly expanded.

    The bill language became public on the eve of the kickoff of a national campaign to rally support for health care legislation that's being orchestrated by Obama's campaign team. Thousands of community events are scheduled around the nation Saturday where tens of thousands of people are supposed to discuss health care issues with their neighbors and create a groundswell for congressional action.

    Yet many hurdles remain. Republicans are strongly opposed to a new public plan, especially the way Kennedy's bill designs it. Under Kennedy's bill the "affordable access plan" would pay providers 10 percent over Medicare rates, which would make it cheaper for patients, but harder for private insurers to compete with. Private insurers fear such a construct would drive them out of business, and there's even division within Democratic ranks.

    That was underscored Friday in the House, as the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus released a set of principles for how the public plan should operate that directly contradicted principles released Thursday by the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative Democrats.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Now, instead of the "off the

Now, instead of the "off the table" but oh-so-reasonable "single payer" option that the entire rest of the world uses with success we get "and require everyone to purchase insurance." How nice for the insurance industry. And it only cost them a pittance in bribes.

$BCEOsHealth-insurance-Β΄bubb

$BCEOsHealth-insurance-Β΄bubbleΒ΄--can you see it coming? [as Β΄housing-bubbleΒ΄?]We donΒ΄t need medical insurance as car insurance because health is not an option as buying a car or other item.62%bankruptcies are health related/EVEN THOSE WITH HEALTH INSURANCE--wakeup america--EVERYBODY has health issues which ultimately means everybody is either bankrupt or = forced into unaffordable insurance which does not pay anyhow & THEN BANKRUPTCY--OBVIOUSLY HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT EFFECTIVE .We need 1-payer healthcare to compete in 21stcentury or the country goes the way of GM.If we had had 1-payer, GM would not be bankrupt.As GM, we will reach a no-return point.

isn't anyone worried about

isn't anyone worried about the clause "new public "affordable access" plan that would for the first time offer government-sponsored health care to Americans not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or other programs"? What does this mean--as long as there is a private plan out there that will accept you, you cannot opt for the public plan? And what does this mean for people who lose their job or move from job to job--they have to keep changing plans? With private insurers instituting wait periods? And still in charge of determining that is eligible for coverage, playing games with very sick people, knowing if they play long enough, the person will die? And leaving us having to deal with mounds of paperwork to go from one plan to another. The only option that works is single payer for all.

Bravo, BillyDoc. You hit

Bravo, BillyDoc. You hit the nail right on the head. While I have no doubts that Teddy is committed to restructuring American healthcare before he shuffles off this mortal coil, I'm afraid that he has taken a shortcut at the urging of the Insurance Companies who prey on a given legistaor's weaknesses to get what they want. As much as I like Teddy, I want single-payer more... and I want the Insurance Companies to be left to prey on the rich and leave the rest of us to the number one healthcare structure in the civilized world. If I were going to trust the government with anything, it would be a single-payer system supported by our taxes and reducing the costs of Healthcare ( and reducing the management and paperwork costs for Doctors!)l Under The LobsterScope

With all due respect to

With all due respect to Senator Kennedy, mandates requiring everyone to purchase insurance is a poor approach to fixing our 'healthcare system'. It does nothing to alleviate the time, energy and money wasted by our citizens to have to SHOP for insurance plans. We want cost-savings through scale and simplification that only a single-payer system would provide. Single-payer systems around the world provide more choice and more coverage for the consumer, and at a much lower cost. Americans don't realize that there is a MUCH better way.

Any plan, whether it is for

Any plan, whether it is for health insurance or utilities, that gives lower income people money to purchase it, is basically giving a subsidy to the industry. It is not controlling cost, and instead adding more administrative costs. The goal should be not just to cost individuals less, but to create a more efficient system. This plan seems like it would cost taxpayers more. Cost shifting is not cost saving. Single payer, expanded Medicare, is the more administratively efficient plan.

No, we're not going to get

No, we're not going to get Singe Payer, but the most relevant part of Kennedy's proposal is: Insurance companies' profits would be limited, and private companies would have to compete with a new public "affordable access" plan that would for the first time offer government-sponsored health care to Americans not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or other programs. In Germany, they don't have single payer, either, but the market is so controlled (by government) that it's providers who struggle to make ends meet. Single payer is not the only way to reform, and severely limiting insurance company profits and forcing them to compete with a public option might even be a better solution, given the array of forces that populate our health care "system." Don't let "the perfect" crowd out the possibility for the very good. A public option (and limitations on profits) is what Single Payer advocates should realistically be fighting for. After a couple of years, private companies might throw in the towel, and then you'd have single payer, anyway.

No disrespect to Sen.

No disrespect to Sen. Kennedy, but what he proposes just won't work. Requiring employers to offer insurance still keeps the insurance companies in control, rather than the doctors and their patients, as it should be. From personal experience, there is only one time in my working life where I did pay for employer-offered insurance. But, that was when I was young and healthy and rarely needed to see a doctor. Requiring employers to offer insurance and requiring employees to purchase insurance will certainly not help the economy if employees are spending a significant part of their income on health care: premiums, co-pays, and non-covered health-care expenses. Single payer will work if given the chance.

I received a letter from my

I received a letter from my health insurance company the day before yesterday notifying me that my premium is going up from $788 to $901 per month... the straw that breaks the camels back... I can't afford that... we could barely pay the $788 (plus, the $385 per month for my wife's policy). It's unbelievable... I'm 56 years old, a vet, I own my own business, am solidly upper middle class, have cancer and now I have to drop my insurance because I've been priced out of the market. This is what's wrong with health care in America. The politicians are selling us out by avoiding the single payer option and keeping us chained to these greedy and useless, paper pushing middlemen. I can't even go to the VA because Bush enacted income limits and I make too much money to qualify for the benefits we were promised when I was drafted. We're getting screwed by both parties and there doesn't appear to be a damn thing we can do about it.

Why must my contact in all

Why must my contact in all these "plans" be mediated by the "1st Class Citizens" (who generally happen to be corporations, eg my employer, my insurance company, etc), instead of allowing ME to negotiate through MY COUNTRY- AS A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY? I don't need a "middleman" to deal with the government for me (even though the "Republic" structure presently mandates just That). I actually TRUST the Federal government to do an efficient job without self-interested meddling by CORPORATIONS. ^..^

Why create another system?

Why create another system? Give everybody the right to buy into Medicaid at an income adjusted premium! that way Medicaid would be improved because alot more people would have a stake in it and everyone could be covered. The one thing really like about the Kennedy plan is that the private companies no longer could refuse people because of "preexisting conditions"... However, they would probably just price those preexisting condition folks out by overcharging, so that possibility would have to be preempted through some sort of price controls.

A mandated nsurance plan can

A mandated nsurance plan can be easilly handled on a national level by a public insurance policy, but will have complications when issued by a private insurance company with only district coverage. Costs vary between hospitals. Will the private insurers cover everything? Will the hospitals accept all patients, or will they not accept some as some do with Medicare?

Long a single-payer

Long a single-payer advocate, I find myself liking the Kennedy plan. It's a way to get where we want to go. I see it as the smoothest possible on-ramp to the single-payer superhighway. If private insurance ultimately does outperform single-payer, what's the problem? It would be great if they could drive the government out of the insurance business. (That's a fantasy, of course, but it's a fantasy that can let people vote, in effect, for single-payer, without having to appear to do so.) We can expect the insurance industry to resist -- with all the resources at its disposal, including Max Baucus -- the idea that it will have to compete with the government and/or with any kind of fixed profit margin. But competition with the government is the key idea of the on-ramp that's needed. It's what advocates of single-player should insist upon.

This is such an important

This is such an important issue, and I believe that we will find as many differences of opinion as we will feelings of common ground. My question is simple: What does this mean to me, as a small business owner who already struggles to pay my own family's insurance costs? I think it is every American's right to have the best care possible, and I am lucky that each of my part-time employees has a spouse to cover them. One way or the other, we cannot leave this mess to yet another generation to figure out - we must think of not just our families but of other Americans who have been marginalized by poverty of services - not poverty of effort or dreams!

Without repeating endlessly

Without repeating endlessly that the purpose of for-profit corporations is to make profit, which can only add cost and stress to healthcare, the three main ideas to blaze across the public's limited attention are RISK POOL, COST SHIFTING, and EVIDENCE-BASED PROTOCOLS. Any "insurance" that does not include an open RISK POOL is a cheat. A limited Risk Pool allows cherry-picking, avoidance of high-risk members, and whatever schemes the flocks of highly paid lawyers can devise to not insure higher-risk persons and make more profit. Single Payer, one all-encompassing Risk Pool, solves the problem of corporations skimming profit by manipulating the Risk Pool. The second idea is COST SHIFTING.. We, the tax-payers, are ALREADY PAYING for the highest-cost healthcare system in the world. When an uninsured person delays inexpensive preventive care and ends up in the Emergency Room needing the most expensive kind of care, WE ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT. Our Insurance Guardians have shifted the cost back to us. Anything we do to rationalize the system will be less expensive. We are already paying higher insurance rates, higher taxes and higher fees -- because of dumb economic incentives to discourage proper care and disincentives for preventive care and early intervention. And finally, with the comprehensive data available from a Single Payer system, we will be able to identify the best EVIDENCE BASED PROTOCOLS -- and get control over physicians who drive up the cost of health care through practice patterns that either incur unnecessary cost innocently, or who incur unnecessary cost to create more profit for themselves.

When oh when will that

When oh when will that private club known as the Senate get it? Employers do not need to be in the health care business, it puts them at quite a disadvantage against all the foreign companies who don't have to worry about that. Profit needs to be removed from the health care equation period. End of story. A 3rd grader can understand this - we are lagging the rest of the world dreadfully in this area - and there is much death and suffering here because of that fact

Keep it simple. Single

Keep it simple. Single payer is simple. All taxpayers pay into it, all Americans get health care. The risk is spread among 300 million Americans, reducing costs and administrative costs are significantly slashed.

Michael Moore said it with

Michael Moore said it with Sicko and most of the posts here seem to be sayibg it. It's obvious what the American people want. Even my Goldwater/Nixon/ Reagan/Bush republican mother recently said to me, "I think they need that health care where the government pays for it, like Medicare" (which she has). I nearly fell over. WE NEED AND WANT SINGLE PAYER!!! It makes the most sense.

When are we going to let

When are we going to let employers off the hook? Insurance tied to employment no longer makes sense and increases the burden US companies have to bear, decreasing their ability to compete worldwide. Keep it simple - give us a single payer system!

I'm still stuck back there

I'm still stuck back there where so many without insurance simply go to the ER and get service. We, who pay for insurance, are in essence paying for them. Might as well raise my premiums (as the Kennedy et al program will require) so the providers will get a fairer payoff. This would sidestep the huge papershuffle that will come with more government administration. Medicare is huge enough bureaucracy as it is.

Other industrialized

Other industrialized countries and populations tend to "Care" for "Everybody" ....What's wrong with America? Our divisions and inequality -lack of Democracy and love of the "Buck" provides too little for most and those who have it- got it by corruption , outright stealing and their deceptions, Would it really hurt so badly to try a little "Humanity?"

I think it is predictable

I think it is predictable that the insurance companies will push for limits on the public options---$5,000 for hospital care, etc., so that we will have to buy supplemental insurance from them.

We want a SINGLE PAYER PLAN

We want a SINGLE PAYER PLAN similar to Medicare. All tax payers can pay a share. (300 MILLION PEOPLE to contribute). Take employers and health insurance companies out of the health business.. Medicare has done an excellent job for the most part. Why do we need to keep supporting the health insurance business, let them go and sell something else. There are too many middle income people that fall in the cracks, and have had to cancel even the worst policies due to such high premiums. I don`t want some insurance clerk or board making decisions regarding my health care. Senator Kennedy, cut out that middle man. We were all promised health care, and it should not be an optional choice.

The auto companies worked

The auto companies worked out a deal with the unions which took care of "everybody" in their little corner of the world. Look what happened to the cost structure of Detroit. And that was covering only those who were willing to work and therefore HAD jobs!! Who is going to pay for these programs?? There aren't enough rich folks to tap out for this project too.

What about those of us who

What about those of us who prefer to take care of medical needs by eating clean, decent food, not having sex with animals and different illegal partners, getting exercise and sunshine, etc? Do we get a rebate for not using the medical system? I would like to see that sort of medical care bill. I really do not see the benefit of taking various poisons prescribed by the industrial medical establishment and brought about by the processed food and pork industry. I am already forced to spend over $1,000 per year against my will for the government Plan A which I have never used and never intend to use. There are many others in the same boat who simply prefer to live in a healthy way.

Kennedy's plan is all 'smoke

Kennedy's plan is all 'smoke and mirrors' and tries to finesse, what cannot be finessed.What is rendered, after all the 'consensus' eviscerations to private capital is reformist gobbledegook. The profit motive must be annihilated, when it comes to health care and the insurers be appropriated by the state-in effect-put out of business. The punitive component to any 'reform' must not be soft pedaled. Furthermore, what this means is that even the wealthy who can afford to purchased enhanced or qualitatively superior medicine at a price, will be out of luck.There will be no valorized options for private privilege.The same for the beggar and for Bill Gates. The same exigent standards of overwhelming superiority that America applies to it's technology of imperial state terror will be leveraged to health care as a universal standard of excellence for all, under the same common roof.

Have the govt. hire all the

Have the govt. hire all the private insurance workers to staff the increase to universal medicare, or whatever we finally get.

Government is controlled by

Government is controlled by corporations. Insurance companies are corporate; the pharmaceutical industry is corporate; the "health care" industry is corporate. Corporations are in it to make money. Corporations, and their money making agendas, are protected by law as if they were persons. By law, the corporations are obligated to put the bottom line (profit) above service or any other agenda; the profit motive corrupts any other motive or agenda that corporations might have. Therefore any form of "health" "insurance" or "health" "care" controlled by corporations is inherently false.

Even if Adam Sass believes

Even if Adam Sass believes that he does not need health care coverage as long as he lives a healthy lifestyle, has he never considered the possibility that he might someday be in a devastating accident that's not his fault but that results in huge medical expenses?

Why don't our

Why don't our representatives listen to us, The People? What is it that they do not understand about our wish to have a Medicare-like system? Why is it that Sen. Baucus is so beholden to the insurance companies. How soon they forget that it is The People who elected them. The majority of American do not want insurance companies to profit from our right to have health insurance. Wake up, Senators, Representatives and The President!

There are some here who are

There are some here who are debating that although this is not perfect, it is the best "ramp" to single payer, as the corporations will die away given limited profits. This logic ignores the enormous capital already at the hands of these corps. With their gigantic money power influence, they can and will subvert any pesky limitations and destroy the government plan. It's like a cancer, you don't just give it a little radiation and stop there, you destroy it the first go round, surgically removing it if possible. Oh and btw @Dough Smyth, 85% of Germans do not have private health insurance, they have the government plan.

Kennedy's plan seems

Kennedy's plan seems excellent! While the "single payer" is ideal, so much of our current economic system is wrapped up in our special convoluted, leaky, waste producing methods that a single payer system most likely will be too much of a jump all at once. Kennedy's German-like plan is a good start. It covers everyone. Its deficiencies will soon become apparent to everyone as well. Meanwhile the profusion of jobs, payment methods, arcane expertise and whatever else that is associated with the hodge-podge of a non-system we currently enjoy as the greatest nation on Earth will have time to rectify themselves and smoothly transition to that sparkling reality of a single payer system yet looming upon the horizon of a new day. If not, at least Kennedy’s idea is better than nothing.

Single payer health care for

Single payer health care for all Americans - get rid of the medical insurance companies. They are the "middle-man" and keep medical insurance costs high. The federal govenment would create jobs for people to process the medical claims and keep costs low for taxpayers. Everyone would get health, dental, and vision insurance - all social classes. It's about time!

Cut to the chase! "Single

Cut to the chase! "Single Payer" is the only way to go. I'm not at all concerned about what will happen to insurance companies an their employees. Maybe they could get training for the new Green economy instead of bleeding people dry.

The good Senator has not yet

The good Senator has not yet realized he can NOT serve the people and the corporations at the same time on this one. He is trying desperately. Maybe he needs contributions from the HMOs to finance his re-election campaign. Kennedy has championed worthy causes before, but this health plan, like Obama's, is a sell-out. Let this be a lesson to us: we need publicly funded elections, so that no elected official is beholden to corporate campaign contributors and lobbyists.

Is it somehow more

Is it somehow more complicated to just do the simplest option? It's not that complicated. We already pay taxes toward a public army (and still have enough cash left over to dole out to a private army of government-paid mercenaries I might add). Here's a simple solution: CUT OUT THE MIDDLE-MEN. Put tax dollars to work and just provide healthcare for everyone without any other hands in the pot. It seems like the insurance industry has to be artificially propped up rather than letting the government perform the simple act of doing its job. That is, if you think the government's job is to work for its citizens. You can't really blame the insurance industry for cashing in. That's the whole point of being a profiteer. I guess quitting the habit of profiteering is no different than quitting smoking. It's easy to just say "single-payer". It's a bit harder to stop the addiction to profiteering from other people's misery. Poor babies. If our government doesn't have the will power to stand up to the insurance industry, maybe it's time for an intervention. We'd be doing them a favor. After all, with so many Republicans predicting "the rapture", I'd hate to think most of them will be "left-behind" due to their own evil, just because we were too rapt up in ourselves to point it out to them. No, I think cold-turkey is the only option here. Sure it will hurt at first. They'll start convulsing and ranting unintelligibly about The President's birth-certificate, or Ruby Ridge or some other nonsense. Don't be taken in. It's called "tough love". In the end, it might be simpler for everyone involved if we just had a single-payer system where we ALL get our money's worth.

"Why don't our

"Why don't our representatives listen to us?" We didn't elect them --we merely voted for them. Those who funded their campaigns elected them. Why do you think it's such a big deal when a politician gets a multitude of small donations from we little people? It is because it shows that we are playing some part, however small, in electing the candidate, by using our dollars.

Provide an add-on to

Provide an add-on to individual and employers' income tax. Let that tax be progressive, with some poor people paying nothing, and have a single-payer , (medicare) system. Keeping it simple, without all the patchwork and subsidies required for any other way, is THE only way. Everyone should be covered, no one should have to apply. Use the tax system and medicare, two systems already in place to fairly pay for this.

I own a small family

I own a small family business with 20 employees, and we pay 100 percent for a fairly good health care plan for every employee who works 20 hours a week or more. It is a Kaiser plan, with no deductible and a $30 co-pay. However, I want to do away with employer based healthcare altogether, and have a public plan, to which I would, as a business, contribute taxes. We could eliminate workers' compensation insurance, medicare, medical, etc. if we just had single payer, tax supported. Right now, for instances, we have installers for projects that are government based. Even though we provide health care, we are forced to pay hourly health care fees to the union as well. The installers never have enough hours to get health care from the unions, but it costs us extra. That would be eliminated. Unions wouldn't have to offer health care, and that would reduce costs of government projects that require prevailing wages. Another thing I resent is the time I have to spend each year looking over plans, comparing them, and trying my best to buy the best plan for my employees. Also, I hesitate to let some people go, even when they're not doing a good job, because I know it means a loss of their health care, and I know they need it badly. I know they will seldom get it anywhere else, and they won't be eligible on their own. When you change jobs or lose a job, you lose your doctor. How does this represent choice? People aren't thinking, and Obama could perhaps get them to think. Remember that your car insurance wouldn't have to provide medical. When we lump everything together, and put it into our tax base, we can provide health care for all. If President Obama would list all the money that it would save business, and individuals as well, to provide single payer insurance, he could probably sell it right now. I wish he would at least try. Sharon Toji

Employer-mandated insurance

Employer-mandated insurance doesn't help the millions of us who work for ourselves. Not everyone works for a giant corporation with giant purchasing power. That's why health care reform MUST include a public option. Join Gov. Howard Dean in making this happen, at www.standwithdrdean.com.

As a Medicare recipient, I

As a Medicare recipient, I believe that the "Medcare for All" plan would work wonderfully well. Along with my supplementary plan, it is the best insurance I have ever had. No paperwork, no deductibles, no co-pays, nothing to worry about. I can see all of my favorite doctors. The only problem I have is my prescription plan. That Medicare Part D Prescription Plan is a disaster! I used to have a fantastic prescription plan from my former employer, but they dispensed with it after the Republicans forced this Part D garbage down our throats. The result is thousands more dollars in expenses every year. While the pharmaceutical companies are becoming wealthier, older people are going without their medication. That must be fixed!!!

Listen Up Citizens! Health

Listen Up Citizens! Health care is a right -- not a privilege and certainly not a privilege for insurance companies to profit from our sickness and misfortune. SINGLE PAYER NOW!

Mr. Kennedy...please explain

Mr. Kennedy...please explain to me exactly what part of "single payer" health care that you do not understand? Certainly it is evident that your proposal ignores your constituents bequest. HR 676 is perfect.... supplement that with a 10-10 and 0 tax deduction on medical care, meaning....no 32000.00 write off for me for med expenses...puts me in a higher tax bracket... 10 - 10, 10% of my gross income and matching 10% from my employer... no medical deductions on taxes as its already done.... WAKE UP, HEAR & LISTEN!!!

>Sat,06/06/2009-15:12-56yr

>Sat,06/06/2009-15:12-56yr USVet->go to the VA Healthcare eligibility website to PG8Enrollment Relaxation, takes effect this June 2009. This done to restore contractual rights of veterans that were dismissed by the GeorgeWBush[effective Jan17,2003, no longer enrolling new veterans into Group8]--IN EFFECT FORCING THEM TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE--AS YOURSELF= GIFT TO THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.1-payer will reverse this for ALL. If this is not good enough, join others to continue the correction. Of course, if we had 1-payer, we would not need an extensive separate duplicate va system.

>Sat,06/06/2009-15:12-56yr

>Sat,06/06/2009-15:12-56yr USVet->go to the VA Healthcare eligibility website to PG8Enrollment Relaxation, takes effect this June 2009. This done to restore contractual rights of veterans that were dismissed by the GeorgeWBush[effective Jan17,2003, no longer enrolling new veterans into Group8]--IN EFFECT FORCING THEM TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE--AS YOURSELF= GIFT TO THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.1-payer will reverse this for ALL. If this is not good enough, join others to continue the correction. Of course, if we had 1-payer, we would not need an extensive separate duplicate va system.

In an ideal world, it would

In an ideal world, it would be good to have therapies paid for by taxpayers that are proved to be efficacious by testing protocols and testers we could all trust. Unfortunately, Sen. Grassley, and now Grassley has a Democratic colleague whose name I can't remember, are finding egregious corruption of universities by the pharmaceutical companies. In addition to that, there is the revolving door between the companies and some of the agencies that are supposed to audit them. Consequently, the federal government now approves things as safe that are not. As far as I can tell, none of this is addressed in any proposed plan. In addition, there are profound differences in things like pain management between the states. I do not see how we can have anything very practical unless intense auditing is done on a state level. States need to be free to do their own evidence-based testing before allowing coverage of a therapy, drug, or procedure. In some states, community-based insurance would cover things people are already paying for out of pocket because the therapies work better than covered options with side effects. Taxpayers should not have to pay for therapies with side effects that then need more drugs with more side effects. How do we stop this sort of thing if we just cover more people and decide to trust the federal government, from whom we have gotten the Federal Reserve and Freddie and Fannie and unbelievable arrangements with huge banks and apparently unstoppable wars? I can see there are some who trust the federal government anyway, but what are you going to do with the people who don't?

I'm with the Single Payer

I'm with the Single Payer Chorus! Send the insurance folks out to get productive jobs: build windmills or solar panels, or rail cars. Take the pharmaceutical companies out of TV ads. (Long ago it was illegal for them to advertise... in the days when medical help was cheaper.) It's not socialism. It's called civilization, and most industrialized nations have it. It goes with other public expenses, such as police, fire, libraries and schools. That is so simple. We'd save money!!!

It is just common sense that

It is just common sense that we should take really good care of our health since being unhealthy is not just expensive; it is also painful, humiliating, and potentially fatal. It goes without saying that people who take really good care of their health lead happier, better lives. I take great care of myself, and this means taking responsibility for what goes in my mouth since I will be the person who directly experiences the consequences of everything I swallow. I see my doctor as a partner in helping me determine and solve those health challenges I cannot solve on my own through natural methods, which I have avidly studied for decades. Because of my research, and some bad experiences with new medicines, I am willing to take only a very short list of older, well researched medicines for acute conditions, and refuse anything else. Not everyone has my wonderfully cooperative genetics, sensitive system, and ability to wade through cryptic research studies, but everyone can benefit from a system that is not run by profiteers because we may find out that some of the simple, inexpensive, highly effective things that work so well for me also work well for lots of other people (yet another way to decrease costs!). I have also known people who took good care of themselves and got sick anyway; fortunately many of them were eventually able to find a good doctor to help them pinpoint the cause of their troubles and solve them. I am not smug about my health, but grateful for it and willing to admit that about 80% is from my own efforts. That other 20% could hit me, or any of us, at anytime, so I advocate for single payer, national health care as the only sane way to proceed to reduce costs and take care of us all.

Seems to me the "public"

Seems to me the "public" insurance option is some sort of bandaid to keep the insurance companies happy and in full profit gouging mode. We need the single pay, universal health care reform as of NOW. The auto industry faced up to their failures finally. banks and financial sectors need to be deep-cleaned, health insurers have failed dismally in their greed for profits and must face the consequences. Single pay, universal all the way is the way to go.

This bill is the one we need

This bill is the one we need to mobilize behind. Single payer would be ideal but in the real world this is the best we can get

DemocracyNow this morning,

DemocracyNow this morning, nice simple taking it apart. Sen. Bernie Sanders and head of CA Nurses Assn. www.democracynow.org Transcript and video online free.

A plan guaranteed to fail

A plan guaranteed to fail that fixes nothing but only provides a government ghetto quality of coverage that will enable foes of single payer to "prove" that it costs more when it will really forces the government to cover the people and illnesses that the health insurance companies choose not to cover. With $400 Billion in waste already why add more spending to the current program. Health insurance companies and hospitals were not allowed to generate shareholder profits, and give billion dollar stock options as one company has done, prior to 1988 and the Reagan led Republican war against workers. People need to decide whether they want to continue to support a corrupt system of government that for the past 3 decades has continued to take more and more from the poor and give to the rich. The US elites have taken away worker rights and now balk at providing even basic health care to people who have had pension funds looted, rights to unionize violated, jobs shipped overseas with the aid of taxpayer subsidies, destruction of the environment, closing of schools and parks, loss of funding for universities and colleges, and monopolies allowed to operate in IT, transportation, communications, farming, and health care. The USA has never looked so much like the fascist state it has become. We may as well replace the flag with a swastika.

Number 1: "require everyone

Number 1: "require everyone to purchase insurance, with exceptions for those who can't afford to." Is my family the only one that used credit over the past 30 years, thought we were being sensible about it, and now find ourselves in the position of being on a fixed income (I know, some now are on NO income) with all the creditors still required to be paid? Now, there's no extra money, sure as hell no extra credit, and ON MEDICARE I'm required by Uncle Sam to pay nearly $600 per month for my insurance (which will start in July, if I don't die first). On Teddy's bill, I guess my husband will be "better off" - he'll be able to get insurance, (but I'll betcha it'll cost a minimum of $600 per month.) Hey, minimum $14,400 a year for health care insurance (NOT health care)! Who do you know that might have a problem paying for that? It's more than my house payment. Where do most middle-class families find that kind of money? So, we'll be in a bind because the government will require us to get insurance but won't help us pay for it since we're not in poverty. Number 2: Single-Payer! Period.

Why should there be any

Why should there be any strings attached. Small Businesses like convenient stores out on the streets cannot afford to provide insurance to their employees. Health care tax. instead, needs to be introduced and from the funds so created and collected, poor wage earners who cannot afford insurance, should be provided a free treatment. just 1% of tax can create huge funds from big Corporations. In India, TATAS, an industrial Giant, has a similar provision and the money so collected is used for the poor in their hospitals Also. preventive care needs to be introduced so that small illnesses do not get into bigger problems. Nick.

Right now the US taxpayers

Right now the US taxpayers pay for: veteran health care, disabled/poor via Medicaid and for the seniors - even rich ones - why add yet another govt run and funded system. Simply, all who on in the aforementioned systems be incorporated in the new national health care program. IF people want more insurance, they can buy additional coverage. IN France, the public system is great! So to in Germany and Luxembourg. In the latter, citizens pay up front for 20% across the board. The govt (collective taxpayer monies_), pay for the rest, 80%! Talk about reducing individual and societal stress (and therefore, related social and emotional health problems). IN the UK you never get a bill, less for dental and some sundry items like elective cosmetic surgery. The USA is so far behind most country when it comes to seeing the right to health care is as right and wise as the right to public education. A right for citizens. A need for all members! Further: all doctors should be put on an annual salary, like any other professional. This is how it is done throughout the world! I have no problems with their getting govt backed student loans so they are not ripped of by bankers. Also, the malpractice and lawsuit cost that we all pay also has to be put on the table. If after all this debate and discussion, universal health care doesn't happen in the USA, then there is truly no hope for the American people. They deserve the greedy system that has run them.

Single-payer: YES,

Single-payer: YES, ABSOLUTELY!!!! Bless you Ted Kennedy. How do we fund coverage for those who can least afford it? simple an excess profits tax! And let us not forget veterans. Who profits every time a man or woman puts on a uniform to serve this nation? A surcharge on every defense contract before it is paid out! Create a fund for the monies which could only be used for veteran's care and benefits. It's long overdue. It is about sharing the burden! And gun-makers should be paying a surcharge on every automatic or assault weapon the moment it is made, they will probably pass it on to purchasers. But it is good p.r., money would go to victim's care, i.e. medical, funeral and burial. victims only, not perpetrators!