A question about the health care bill and the future of single-payer

[midnight armadillo]

Ok, I have some questions about the health care bill. Without going into kill/support, realist/idealist type pissing matches, I'm hoping to see what y'all think of what this will mean for progressive health care reform in the future.

The "realist" camp keeps claiming that this is the best we're going to get and that it will be incrementally improved in the (near?) future. For the sake of argument and the context of this question, let's concede that point. I know it contains provisions ending pre-existing coverage discrimination, recission, etc so clearly there are some positive features in it. Some of the provisions don't kick in for a few years.

So here's the main question: given the decades-old progressive or liberal dream of some type of universal health coverage (single-payer, robust public optons, or some variation thereof),

• how does passage of this bill advance single-payer?
• How could it be incrementally improved in 2,5,10 years time to get us out of the failing US system of private insurance?
• What's the roadmap like?

or is DU just so drowning in acrimony that this post is futile?

[Cleita]

1. The passage of this bill drowns single payer.

It has nothing to do with DU. It's just a fact.

Nothing will get private insurance out of our system until we bomb it somehow. This whole bill will legitimize private insurance as part of our government system. It sucks.

What roadmap do you want? The one to the Emerald City, or the one that says you have to take the road to Washington with your torches and pitchforks?

[pnwmom]

7. Not true. Nothing in this bill would prevent Medicare from being expanded

in the future, if there are enough votes.

[Cleita]

9. "...If there are enough votes." LOL! n/t

[leftstreet]

2. Single payer has no future. Not on the table. Never was.

They're coming after Medicare next

[midnight armadillo]

11. Bulk drug purchasing was given away by Obama

...in direct negotiation with the pharma industry. This would have saved Medicare enormous quantities of money.

Perhaps you're right, maybe in a few years they'll just declare Medicare as a Cadillac plan and start cutting it back.

[sandnsea]

3. 97% of the country gets health care

97% of the country will be relieved to not have to worry about that cough or headache or child's fever.

Subsidies will likely be too expensive.

Single Payer will be the only feasible answer. Ten years, I'd say.

[Donnachaidh]

5. and that 3 per cent left over will be the ones who REALLY needed insurance

but were not able to afford this laughable POS being touted as *reform*. But what the heck - it's only 3% of the population. We can just say fuck them, we've got ours...

[sandnsea]

6. That 3% won't be covered mostly because they avoid it

Some people don't even go through the process to get Medicaid even though they qualify. You can never get to 100% coverage. I'll take 97% of adults covered over the 65%, or so, that we have now. I'm not willing to let that 32% do without because of some fools' obsession with utopia.

[TransitJohn]

10. No they don't . They get INSURACE, a/k/a

extortion and racketeering. Please quite conflating insurance with the delivery of health care services.

[Edweird]

4. From where I sit, it's the opposite of single payer.

It hands a government mandated monopoly to the very entities that made our healthcare system the abomination it is now. Single payer would likely put them out of business, or at the very least relegate them to tiny niche areas. Instead insurance company stocks are blowing up. This is nothing more than a shakedown. As far as it helping '30 million', well, check out the housing deal. It was supposed to help 'millions' save their homes. As of right now about 30,000 are enrolled in the temporary program (with no guarantees) and about 10,000 have permanent mortgages. That's nationwide. So, any claims of '10's of millions' being helped is met with healthy and deserved skepticism.

[ZombieHorde]

8. Good questions. nt

[midnight armadillo]

12. Thanks

Unfortunately I see little to be hopeful for. On one hand there are some positive provisions regarding pre-existing conditions etc., but the mandates, benefit taxation, attack on unions via the "Cadillac" plan crap, mandates, and complete lack of a "public option" or Medicare-at-55 really, really suck. I don't see a path from this towards true health care industry reform. If anything, it will make that industry bolder, more entrenched, and vastly wealthier.

[freddie mertz]

13. When and if it fails to work, we met the chance for Single-Payer.

But the damage done to the Democratic Party may mean we have to do it under a new name.