Health Care Hopes - New York Times
All the evidence suggests that it has finally become politically possible to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have: guaranteed health insurance. The economics of universal health care are sound, and polls show strong public support for guaranteed care. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. . .
The Edwards and Clinton plans as well as the slightly weaker but similar Obama plan achieve universal-or-near-universal coverage through a well-thought-out combination of insurance regulation, subsidies and public-private competition. These plans may disappoint advocates of a cleaner, simpler single-payer system. But it’s hard to see how Medicare for all could get through Congress any time in the near future, whereas Edwards-type plans offer a reasonable second best that you can actually envision being enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president just two years from now. . .
There won’t be a serious Republican alternative. The health care plans of the leading Republican candidates, such as they are, are the same old, same old: they principally rely on tax breaks that go mainly to the well-off, but will supposedly conjure up the magic of the market. As Ezra Klein of The American Prospect cruelly but accurately puts it: “The Republican vision is for a world in which the sick and dying get to deduct some of the cost of health insurance that they don’t have — and can’t get — on their taxes.”




Comments
Anybody else think this guy should be our next Secretary of the Treasury? If I were a Howard Dean type, I'd consider Krugman for State (these things are normally done in the background, as little sense as that makes). I've been reading Krugman for years, and he was right about tax cuts to the rich, right about the housing bubble, right about the need for universal health care, right about Iraq from day one, right about a whole lotta shit. Wouldn't it be nice to have someone like that in the inner circles of power for a change?
Surely the point is (as Michael Moore was trying to say) that as long as there is a profit motive in Health Care there will be the motive for the HMOs to refuse as much treatment as possible in order to maximise profit for shareholders? Sure there needs to be the private option for those who wish, and have the ability, to pay for faster or 'better' treatment, but everyone should be entitled to "free" healthcare just as they have "free" fire and police services.
Post a comment