Regarding the article Commonwealth study analyzes impact of bills targeting uninsured:
Matthew DoBias article makes a very good point about an important study from the Commonwealth Fund. Basically, Rep. Pete Starks AmeriCare proposal and Rep. John Conyers Medicare for All, which is similar but wasnt studied by the Lewin Group, are bills that would actually lead to true universal healthcare and control costs. All the other proposals that seek to protect a large role for the for-profit private insurance industry clearly will neither get us to universal coverage nor control costs.
The bills from Sens. Mike Enzi and Richard Burr are intellectually bankrupt, but ideologically appealing to a large segment of the monied interests in the country. Sen. Ron Wydens bill is really little better.
President-elect Obama has said that if he were starting from scratch, he thinks some sort of Medicare for allsingle payerplan would be ideal. Why isnt that our first choice as this debate moves forward?
Rob Stone, M.D., F.A.C.E.P.Former chief of staff and former board member of Bloomington (Ind.) HospitalDirector of Hoosiers for a Commonsense Health PlanAssistant Clinical Professor of Emergency Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine