Could progressives do something like Christian Brotherhood Newsletter?

[Cats Against Frist]

I've been trying to think of ways to screw unscrupulous business that take our money and make the investor class rich, while short-shrifting the needs of the community.

The Christians have this crazy newsletter that they send money to and then it pays for when you're sick. They say it's not "insurance," but it works like, well, "insurance." They got in trouble several years ago, when someone was skimming of the company, but, as far as I know, they've worked out the kinks, now.

Also, on that note -- does anyone know of not-for-profit insurance companies? Do they exist? I tried searching, and couldn't find much.

Also: even though Kerry's health plan wasn't "socialized medicine," the GOP crappers ragged on it like Mao himself would be heading it up -- is this resistance simply because if not-for-profit insuance companies were created, and partially funded by the government, that it would simply get more people off of the for-profit insurance companies. I figure there's an ulterior movitve for everything.

Doesn't it make sense that the best way to fix the fucked up health care system in this country is to have a not-for-profit insurance company, into which most of the middle class can buy a share on a sliding scale, partially funded by government and/or employers, partially funded by investment -- wherein preventative care and physicals were made a priority, so that problems could be nipped in the bud, before they got costly?

[sangh0]

1. It doesn't make sense for us to do that

Repukes are about privatizing governmental functions, so of course they'll be in favor of anything that weakens the need for the government to provide health insurance.

We should not help them in their efforts.

[Cats Against Frist]

2. I said partially subsidized by the government

And what if it's better? When I lived in Washington State and I was dirt poor, and didn't want to marry my boyfriend just to get health insurance, I could buy into a plan for $43, because I had a child. I'm not suggesting cutting government funding for the most needy -- though I'd rather see it at the state level -- BUT it would be great if there were something like this that those who are not insured could buy into. And the government ends up paying for-profit insurance companies, anyway -- though I suspect they get cut a deal -- but maybe there's a cheaper way to do it.

Insurance companies don't need money for R & D or anything, so why should they be profit-driven industries to begin with?

[sangh0]

3. Still

Have you read Lakoff's "Don't think of an elephant"?? In it, he makes a great point IMO, that many of the policies advocated by the right are meant to degrade support for our side. Their support for "tort reform" is meant to deny us the money that trial lawyers donate to Dems while preventing corps from being successfully sued

Creating a private entity to help provide health care to people reduces support for a government to provide this service because people will see the govt as being unnecessary, even though govt participation is necessary in this area.

It's the same thing with charter schools. By creating private entities (that, like your proposal, are subsidized by the govt) they reduce support for the idea that public education requires govt involvement.