- And this blank page where my fingers move
- Pennsylvania Hunger Games Diet: Cash for Corporations, Cuts for Kids
- The Incredible Shrinking Mayor
- Multi-tasking with the 1% … killing the schools AND making the poor pay for their funeral.
- Council Can Give the SRC the Money to NOT Privatize the System
- Predatory Payday Lending Bill Flies Out of Cramped PA House Committee
- Let the Games Begin: PA Senate Announces Details of Budget Proposal
- Good News on PA Revenue But Don’t Count Your Blessings Just Yet
- Defeat Corbett
- Set off without a Paddle: Unpacking the School District’s Disaster Capitalism
Pennsylvania Residents Overwhelmingly Want Everyone to Have Health Insurance
Submitted by Dan U-A on Sun, 01/21/2007 - 5:08pm.
Lawmakers from all over the State are wise to keep this poll in mind:
IssuesPA, Fall 2006: (page 27)
What do you think is more important? (questions rotated)
1)Providing health insurance coverage for EVERYONE, even if it means raising taxes (or)
2)Keeping taxes down, even if it means some people do not have health insurance coverage.
Answer number one, providing health insurance coverage for everyone, was chosen overwhelmingly- 72% to 22%.
Health Insurance for everyone, like Gov. Rendell's Prescription for Pennsylvania is not only the right thing to do. It is the popular thing to do.
Conservatives will attack
Former congressman Pat Toomey has already started to attack Rendell's record. I suspect that he will emerge as a leading critic of Rendell's health care proposal. As I wrote on my blog, I think he is going to eventually run for governor. We should refute his (and other conservatives) arguments against universal healthcare in preparation for 2008 and 2010.
---
http://benwaxman.com
no doubt!
I agree that this is a key issue. however, is Rendell's huge package of proposals, aimed at cobbling together efficient and universal coverage, really better than a single-payer, centralized model? a bill to establish the latter has been sitting in the State Assembly for a while, and may finally get out of committee this term -- I hope that Rendell's grandstanding doesn't preempt discussion of this more coherent, while equally (and, in some regards, more) ambitious, plan...
acm
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
Universal Healthcare
While I agree we need to have healthcare for all, I believe it needs to be A) at the Federal level and B) not involving the GREEDY insurance industry. If you take notice every recent proposal involves the insurance companies in some form. That is because they donate LOTS of money to the politicans during campaigns. What we REALLY need is a proposal like HR 676 from the last session of Congress (sponsored by Rep. Conyers). It needs to be reintroduced and taken through the process. Whether we are aware or not currently the government provides about 80% of the healthcare coverage in the US. This could be through Medicare or to government employees etc. That means only 20% is provided by private insurers. There are about 2000 insurance companies nationwide providing 20% of the healthcare coverage and each one of those companies has their own agents, actuaries, etc within their organization. This is duplication of efforts and expense and at whose expense, the insureds! Research the bill I refer to and tell me you thoughts! I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.
Sure
I agree that we need universal health care, on a federal level, in a way that will likely directly confront the insurance industry.
But, until that happens, we need to embrace what we can do on our State level- and what Rendell is proposing does quite a lot to make people better off.
Sorry
Sorry for the double post!
Perhaps
"But, until that happens, we need to embrace what we can do on our State level- and what Rendell is proposing does quite a lot to make people better off"
Agreed. But Jr.'s (the whole name is too long) point is a very good one. While increasing healthcare covering in PA is obviously a worthwhile goal, there is a danger in working towards a compromise goal that enriches insurance companies even further in lieu of focusing on the larger goal here.
What distresses me is Rendell's lack of balance. He seems to me to be playing poltics with the issue more than focusing on the larger issue.
I wouldn't expect different. However, I think that even as we work in support of the PA healthcare initiative, it makes sense to keep everything in perspective.
Sure. And, for example,
Sure. And, for example, Edwards and Obama have already said they are for Universal Healthcare. Nationally, it will be on the table in '08.
In the meantime, lets get going on this now, and keep in mind that whether he is playing politics or not, more people will get health care than almost anywhere in the Country.
Just remember, Environmental
Just remember, Environmental Protection (clear air, water, etc.) in the 1950s started on the state level and about 20 years later it went Federal. I think, in fact, New Jersey may have been the first state to go that direction.
In 2008, it will be on the table. But, these "experiments" always start on a state level. What did we lack in 1992-93 when the Clintons tried--a state who had actually done it. Now there is definitely one, Massachusetts, with 2-4 more in the works. Maybe Pennsylvania can be on the cutting edge here. Let's hope so.
But, I do suggest that while we are fully behind the idea that when it hits the form of legislation, we thoroughly review and talk about the actual words and their effect (if it comes down) amongst ourselves to ensure that the right goals are being prioritized--not enlarging the profits of insurance companies. We should not be afraid to bargain, to the extent we can, for something better than what is proposed. .
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!