Senator Kennedy on Medicare for All. A bill that did this:

The bill was amazing in its simplicity: every 2 years (or, in another version of the bill, every 5 years) the eligibility for Medicare was lowered by 10 years (and raised from below by 10 years), with those under 65 being asked to check a box on their taxes if they signed up for Medicare (to be charged for it). It's a great model for the public option, and makes the argument for a public option easier.

What do we want the new SQ to be?  Do we want to make CARE more affordable, so that more people can access it without going broke, and if so, how do we do that?  Do we want to be a nation that does not see the connection between a healthy populace and a healthy economy, or do we want to have the dubious distinction of being the largest developed nation where economic status and ability to pay determine access to health care?  Is it small-d democratic to have policies that are encouraging the consolidation of wealth in a small percentage of people, while growing an impoverished underclass that will continue to drag the economy down?  What good is it to give people the right to vote and to speak if, in the end, their votes do not matter and their voices are not heard because the corporate class is controlling those responsible for legislation and policy?  Where is the tipping point for widespread rebellion fueled by anger, and must we get there before substantive change results?

In the current SQ, it is the insurance companies who are an impediment to affordable access, so how do we go about changing that?  Those of us with insurance are paying out-of-pocket before we ever incur any actual medical expense, so if that initial cost is too burdensome, one of two things will happen: people will decide not to get or keep insurance coverage and will make do with minimal access to care, all the while praying nothing catastrophic happens to them, or they will pay the premiums because they are not willing to risk not having coverage if something catastrophic happens, but in the meantime, they will skimp on actual care because they cannot afford the deductibles and co-pays.  

Insurance companies are in business to make money, and they want to do that as profitably as possible.  That's the model, so we cannot and should not expect these companies to sacrifice profits for the public good on their own.  Guaranteeing them premiums for every single American is not going to encourage them in that regard, either - why would it?  Regulating them is and always will be an exercise in whack-a-mole: close off one avenue of profitability and the backrooms will be filled with people tasked at finding new ones, and they will always be one step ahead of regulatory oversight, which is slow and cumbersome and not retroactive - which means that it never helps those who got burned by questionable tactics, only those from that point forward.

Do we put the insurance companies out of business, or do we allow them to exist, but implement a public option that will force them to decide if they are willing to sacrifice seven-figure salaries and bonuses for the privilege of staying in business?  

Lefties not even waiting until the body is cold.

linking to this:

Kennedy's Death Spurs Calls to Pass Health Legislation