The Specifics of Health Care Reform....

[RadioRaheem84]

Does anyone have any good leftist sources that tackle the health care reform issue and explain it thoroughly? I was talking to a right winger and he told me that even though it doesn't promote universal health care, that the proposals do include a line in it or two that would open up the avenue for the government to step in and take over health care in this country. Is this true?

What is the opposition on the left concerning the health care proposals in the house and senate?

[Crux]

At a protest in 2000 against efforts to roll back the Medicare system in the province of Alberta, Kiefer Sutherland defended Canada's public, single-payer system:
"Private health care does not work. America is trying to change their system. It's too expensive to get comprehensive medical care in the U.S. Why on earth are we going to follow their system here? I consider it a humanitarian issue. This is an issue about what is right and wrong, what is decent and what is not."

[CartCollector]

At a protest in 2000 against efforts to roll back the Medicare system in the province of Alberta, Kiefer Sutherland defended Canada's public, single-payer system:
"Private health care does not work. America is trying to change their system. It's too expensive to get comprehensive medical care in the U.S. Why on earth are we going to follow their system here? I consider it a humanitarian issue. This is an issue about what is right and wrong, what is decent and what is not."

Still doesn't tell us what's in the bill. As far as we know the bill could have provisions where you have to sacrifice your firstborns to Moloch and sell your virgin daughters to the government before you can get any health care benefits.

[Crux]

Yes I am sorry I just wanted to put that out there. As I understand the bill it will mean that sort of public health insurance will be established in a very limited form as an option to the private companies. It will not cover all those presently outside of the system. And let's not forget those with private healthinsurance who still get screwed over which are quite a few. Some of them might be covered by this public option instead if they so chose but I am dubious how effective it will be.

[The Douche]

There is no more public option, it is a law which will force all citizens to purchase private insurance, unless you can "prove you can't afford it". It is pretty much the opposite of socialized healthcare.

[Crux]

Well, I am only watching this debate from afar, so I assume the american comrade know in more detail what is actually going on.

[Red Commissar]

As for your friend, there are some sentiments that this bill is a "foot in the door" so to speak, for public health care.

I can't speak for the bill when it was first introduced, but it's becoming more and more obvious over time what the Obama administration and the Democrats are settling for is to regulate the health care industry, rather than the single-payer option that was kicked around by some politicians earlier.

What might end up being established as of now is a system where insurance companies, the medical firms, pharmaceutical companies, etc are brought in line with public policy... corporatism I suppose.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13417&news_iv_ctrl=1283

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/heal-m10.shtml

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/pers-f27.shtml

[Martin Blank]

We had a Special Edition of Working People's Advocate last November about the House version of health care "reform", with a couple follow-ups a week or so later on the Senate version. The articles are available on UCPA News -- www.ucpanews.com -- and the PDF of that issue is on our party's website.

We also have a poster we made for protests over the health tax proposed in the Senate bill, called "Chains We Can Believe In".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Suggested reform demand: "The takeover of the health-industrial complex and all assets of workers' insurance and private pension funds into permanent public ownership, with levies against corporate assets for any fund deficits, and with decisive worker participation in their administration"

[Paul Cockshott and I are debating about whether the word "fund" should be in the above.]

[Paul Cockshott]

My point is that there is no need for a fund in a public system it becomes just a share of the general tax revenue.