Question: comprehensive health care package?
++
George Mitchell: Well, you’ve asked three questions, each of which would take about an hour to answer properly. So, I can’t get into that. I’ll just tell you that, by coincidence, a very short time ago, Senator Bob Dole and I held a press conference in Washington. Bob and I and Howard Baker and Tom Dacshle, four former Senate Majority Leaders, two Republican, two Democrat, are joining in an effort totry to agree on a healthcare reform program that we will make public after the election, in the hopes of generating and spurring debate. There are other commissions and groupings that are doing it, and we’ve said we’re gonna enter it with an open mind, we’re gonna try very hard to reach agreement among ourselves. We’re all good friends personally, and that’ll help a lot. But, so I wouldn’t try to pre-judge it at this point, and honestly, this is not the kind of thing you can reduce to a bumper sticker and a slogan. It requires a thoughtful, comprehensive discussion. I think the system is, of course, capable of doing it. I think there are two stages in the legislative process on major issues that affect pretty much the whole country. The first is a consensus among the American people that a problem exists, and I think we’ve reached that stage. The second is a consensus on what is the best solution to the problem, and we clearly have not reached that stage. But I have heard in the past several months, not just in the campaign, but outside the campaign, many, many more voices recognizing the need for some change, including many who are part of the system, what the phrase is stakeholders in the system. People who deliver healthcare, people whose occupations are involved in healthcare, and of course, patient advocates. I emphasize that, while I’m not gonna get into the details of what the program ought to be for the reasons I’ve just stated, that you can’t just look at coverage. You have to look at the quality, the manner in which care is delivered, and the financing of the system. There is a huge amount of waste in the American system. It does not necessarily follow in this case that if you spend more money, you get a better result. I’m not sure that follows in any case, but it surely doesn’t follow in this case. So, it’ll be tough and there obviously will have to be a bipartisan approach because, while it’s likely that Democrats will increase their margins in the House and Senate, it’s not likely that Democrats will increase their margins in the Senate to the sixty votes that are necessary to cut off debate. So, you’re gonna need some kind of bipartisan effort, which is why the four of us are getting together to try to help out in that area.
Discuss
thomas plahn on November 6, 2008, 8:26 PM
What is needed is a voucher system which provides a voucher worth approximately 2/3 the cost of a basic health insurance package. Make the voucher available to everyone regardless of income. By using a voucher you maintain a free market system. By providing the exact same amount to everyone you create a sense of fairness to the system. Individuals and businesses would be able to take up the remaining 1/3 or more if they choose, creating a very dynamic marketplace. The best way to pay for such a voucher would be with a sales tax. Using a sales tax allows us to pay as we go, rather than the big chunk at the end of the year you have with income taxes. The sales tax may require that states take up this initiative, but still I believe it could be politically doable if at least one state is willing to give it a try others will follow. Perhaps the federal government could prime the well by offering a one time incentive for any state willing to try such a plan.
Fred Markham on December 20, 2008, 6:43 AM
With very few exceptions, our political leaders shy away from the concept of a national single-payer health care delivery system. The notion is automatically dismissed as “socialist”, and the public unfortunately seems to accept this simple-minded condemnation of a system that is working exceptionally well in most western countries today.Instead, most plans promulgated by our leaders (including President-Elect Obama) are based on revising the current system. But the current system has a fundamental flaw that makes its simple reform unworkable: insurers have virtual total control over who gets the health care, and the insurers’ profit motive is in direct conflict with the idea of providing quality health care to all of the citizens of the country. THEY DON’T MAKE MORE MONEY BY PROVIDING QUALITY, COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE TO ALL AMERICANS.
Those who claim that big government bureaucracy can’t manage health care overlook the fact that the current system is an incredibly huge and wasteful private bureaucracy… with administrative costs more than three times those of the so-called socialist systems.
National single-payer systems are proven to be a successful way for a country to share the health care costs fairly, and it is nonsensical for us to believe that we Americans – who claim to be able to accomplish anything – can’t also create a government system that works for national health care.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register