[HM2Viking]

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...rticleId=12608

The Campaign's proposals for comprehensive reform...

• The Wisconsin Health Plan, chiefly associated with former state budget director David Riemer, a moderate Democrat, aims at rewarding insurers who combine networks of high-quality providers with a reasonable cost. While the most "market-oriented" -- even including a small-scale Health Savings Account feature -- it would automatically enroll every Wisconsin citizen for health care coverage.
• The Wisconsin Health Security Plan applies many aspects of the Canadian single-payer model to Wisconsin, most notably the replacement of 450 private insurers with one public entity in order to eliminate the costly and often infuriating bureaucracy imposed by private insurers. It would be funded by payroll taxes on both employers and workers.
• The Wisconsin Health Care Partnership Plan hopes to build on employers' familiarity with the state's Workers Compensation program, the first in the nation, which imposes a fee on all employers to cover the care and income of injured workers. Devised by state AFL-CIO President David Newby, the plan also includes a mechanism for a unitary fund to handle claims, thereby cutting out the costs imposed by private insurance bureaucracies.

Crucial new momentum for comprehensive reform has been generated by Democratic Governor Jim Doyle's budget proposal, which expands the state's coverage of low-income families so that about 98 percent of Wisconsinites have health coverage (about 600,000 are now uninsured). Doyle's proposal would consolidate all existing programs for low-income people (chiefly Medicaid and the S-CHIP program for children and parents) and expand them to childless adults, to be funded by a combination of higher tobacco taxes, a new hospital tax (Wisconsin's nonprofit hospitals recently reported a surplus of $1 billion for 2005), and $60 million in new federal funding. If enacted, Doyle's budget provision would establish a "floor" of coverage that will make comprehensive reform less expensive and more achievable. At this point, it appears likely that Doyle will sign any progressive health reform that comes to his desk, insiders say.

Three viable plans from the home of the progressive movement. All of them could be scaled up to work for any state.

[classicdame]

There was a time when I would run screaming from any attempt at universal health care. I now feel it is an idea whose time has come.

[lovemyjobsometimes]

My initial thought is.....has there ever been anything that the government has gotten involved in that has been a success? Seems like all of our public programs are either broke or underfunded. I just have a feeling that with national health care all of our hospitals will be like Walter Reed.

[pickledpepperRN]

Originally Posted by classicdame

There was a time when I would run screaming from any attempt at universal health care. I now feel it is an idea whose time has come.

When I was younger and Medicare was new I thought it was enough. People too old or disabled to work would be covered.

We had no insurance when I was pregnany because ther was no COBRA. I was laid off because of a normal pregnancy. Seems crazy now but was common then. Husband was in business and had no health insurance. We just paid the doctor.
Cedars Sinai hospital had a deal then where you paid $165.00 every month for 7 months and whatever your hospital bill was it was paid. The 6 month post partum checkup was paid for as well as three monthly well baby appointments with immunizations. Then a well baby clinis was very affordable. We did have to let interns and residents examine us and lear procedures.

Now there is nothing affordable for working families. Without insurance you have to go to the ER or a free clinic. No office I know of will take a private pay patient.

[ingelein]

Governor Doyle is a great guy, very progressive, drives the conservatives crazy, I love him!We also have a great Senator, Feingold, very ethical, one of the few that was against the war in Iraq from day one, too bad he isnt running for president. Our former Governor,Tommy Thompson IS running for prsident, the conservatives live this guy, he WAS responsible fro eradicating welfare in this state and thwen it became nation wide, most agree that this was a good thing, because WI was one of the states in which there was MUCH welfare fraud.On the whole Tommy Thompson is not a bad candidate for the Republican party, he and Bush parted ways some time back, I am not sure why, but this does make me want to trust him a bit more.On the whole I think he is a pretty ethical guy, he would make a better president than any of the current Republican candidates.Sorry off topic.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by lovemyjobsometimes

My initial thought is.....has there ever been anything that the government has gotten involved in that has been a success? Seems like all of our public programs are either broke or underfunded. I just have a feeling that with national health care all of our hospitals will be like Walter Reed.

Most of the funding issues could be solved through tight management of Administrative costs. We spend 400 BN per year extra on Administrative costs for health care....Save that and rededicate those dollars to patient care and the US truly would have the best overall health care system in the world.

[ZASHAGALKA]

I'm not opposed to State plans, at all.

50 different States providing 50 different solutions brings to the table a breeding ground of ideas that will allow the better ones to prove themselves in the marketplace, thus weeding out the weaker ideas.

If a State goes too far, the sucking sound of healthcare resources or businesses leaving the State will provide a much needed counterbalance.

National restricted healthcare would be a disaster. There would be no alternatives.

50 different alternatives to choose from: sounds like a plan.

Let the States do what is best for their citizens. After all, they are much more responsive and local to the needs of their citizens.

In any case, State initiatives cannot and do not have the power to attempt to socialize the Federal gov't. So much the better.

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

I'm not opposed to State plans, at all.

50 different States providing 50 different solutions brings to the table a breeding ground of ideas that will allow the better ones to prove themselves in the marketplace, thus weeding out the weaker ideas.

If a State goes too far, the sucking sound of healthcare resources or businesses leaving the State will provide a much needed counterbalance.

National restricted healthcare would be a disaster. There would be alternatives.

50 different alternatives to choose from: sounds like a plan.

Let the States do what is best for their citizens. After all, they are much more responsive and local to the needs of their citizens.

In any case, State initiatives cannot and do not have the power to attempt to socialize the Federal gov't. So much the better.

~faith,
Timothy.

I think that the contrary is more likely to happen. The first state to have a true single payer vender system in place will have companies beating down the doors to relocate. Single payer will be a selling point for business and not a detractor. Businesses benefit by being able to socialize the risk of employee benefits across the broad economy just as they benefit from socializing education and training costs to the schools and university systems through the taxpayers.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

I think that the contrary is more likely to happen. The first state to have a true single payer vender system in place will have companies beating down the doors to relocate. Single payer will be a selling point for business and not a detractor. Businesses benefit by being able to socialize the risk of employee benefits across the broad economy just as they benefit from socializing education and training costs to the schools and university systems.

Fine. PROVE that in an environment that allows businesses and citizens a CHOICE.

That is a far different proposition than gov't fiat restrictive care that brooks no choice.

My biggest complaint about gov't restrictive healthcare is that this vision of utopia is only ever really idealized at the point of the gov't's sword. IF it is such a good idea, it would be voluntarily embraced.

So, State plans allow for JUST THAT. As you said, if YOU truly believe that such a choice would be embraced instead of being required to be enforced, then THAT is the true means to test such a program.

The concept is better tested in a Constitutional framework that leaves such decisions to the States, where they belong.

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

The french have already field tested a single payer plan where everyone is in the system through either an employer sponsored plan, state plan, union plan or some form of private insurance.

Congress does have the authority within the constitution to pass legislation to promote the general welfare of the states and by extension their citizens. The one problem with the laboratory of the states theory that I can see is a differential of health coverage and protections to citizens. A real health security plan for the US requires that a minimum written definition of a basic level of primary care services for all people living in the US be developed by Congress. Further, the interests of the states and citizenry are represented at the federal level by elected members of the House and Senate.

Look at this from the voting rights perspective. Each of the states has a different set of rules for voter registration, ballot design, and reinstatement rules for felons. Because we as a country have not developed consistent rules for voting there has been significant disruption of the electoral process in each of the elections since 2000. A consistent set of voting rules would tend to increase voter participation and trust of the political process. (Somewhat off topic but the US would definitely benefit from universal adoption of same day voter registration for all citizens).

What we have in the current (non)system is a fragmented patchwork of different coverage levels and benefits. This drives up costs for everyone.

Below average investments yield below average results. (1 is most liveable and 50 least liveable.) The first number is the 2007 ranking.

http://www.morganquitno.com/sr07mlrnk.htm

50

Mississippi

15.86
49

49

Louisiana

18.39
50

40

Oklahoma

21.30
43

39

Texas

21.55
41

vs.

20

Wisconsin

26.09
14

9

South Dakota

29.95
13

6

Iowa

30.84
3

2

Minnesota

33.32
2

Quality attracts quality.