

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The goal of real reformers is clear: a "Medicare for all" single-payer national healthcare system.
Getting there could be a little tough this fall.
But America will get there.
The current system is broken; it fails to serve 45 million Americans
and underserves another 45 million. It costs too much and it delivers
too little to a country where life expectancy rates are rapidly falling
below those of developed nations with universal healthcare programs.
The compromises of a weak "public option" or less are insufficient
to the point of being laughable, and potentially more costly than the
current monstrosity.
So we will get to single-payer.
The only question is how and when.
One answer, perhaps the best, is offered by Congresswoman Tammy
Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, who has proposed and promoted the idea of
allowing states to experiment with different healthcare systems.
Under Baldwin's plan, a progressive state such as Oregon or Vermont
could develop a "Medicare for all" program within its borders. At the
same time, a more traditionally conservative state such as Mississippi
or Alabama could muck around with so-called "medical-savings accounts"
and other gimmicks developed by the insurance industry and its
political mouthpieces.
Then it would be a case of may the best state win -- with the evidence of which model works best developing over time.
Canada went this route, experimenting first with single-payer in Saskatchewan.
Slowly, other provincial governments recognized that the "Medicare
for all" model delivered quality healthcare at affordable prices and
adopted it. And, eventually, the reforms initiated in once province
went national.
Baldwin has introduced a House resolution expressing the determination of the Congress
to facilitate state-based innovation in national healthcare reform. And
she has encouraged moves -- by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and
others -- to insure that this sort of flexibility is a part of any plan
that comes out of the House.
This is important, since federal rules regarding Medicare and other
programs can limit the options for states. And a mangled healthcare
reform plan passed in rush by legislators who just want to "do
something" could further constrain progressive initiatives.
Baldwin's gotten a number of co-sponsors for her resolution --
including a few Republicans. It's important that single-payer backers
sign on now, as part of the broader push to make sure that if the feds
fail us, states can lead.
Washington may not give us real reform this year. But it should at
least give progressive states a chance to move in the right direction.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The goal of real reformers is clear: a "Medicare for all" single-payer national healthcare system.
Getting there could be a little tough this fall.
But America will get there.
The current system is broken; it fails to serve 45 million Americans
and underserves another 45 million. It costs too much and it delivers
too little to a country where life expectancy rates are rapidly falling
below those of developed nations with universal healthcare programs.
The compromises of a weak "public option" or less are insufficient
to the point of being laughable, and potentially more costly than the
current monstrosity.
So we will get to single-payer.
The only question is how and when.
One answer, perhaps the best, is offered by Congresswoman Tammy
Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, who has proposed and promoted the idea of
allowing states to experiment with different healthcare systems.
Under Baldwin's plan, a progressive state such as Oregon or Vermont
could develop a "Medicare for all" program within its borders. At the
same time, a more traditionally conservative state such as Mississippi
or Alabama could muck around with so-called "medical-savings accounts"
and other gimmicks developed by the insurance industry and its
political mouthpieces.
Then it would be a case of may the best state win -- with the evidence of which model works best developing over time.
Canada went this route, experimenting first with single-payer in Saskatchewan.
Slowly, other provincial governments recognized that the "Medicare
for all" model delivered quality healthcare at affordable prices and
adopted it. And, eventually, the reforms initiated in once province
went national.
Baldwin has introduced a House resolution expressing the determination of the Congress
to facilitate state-based innovation in national healthcare reform. And
she has encouraged moves -- by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and
others -- to insure that this sort of flexibility is a part of any plan
that comes out of the House.
This is important, since federal rules regarding Medicare and other
programs can limit the options for states. And a mangled healthcare
reform plan passed in rush by legislators who just want to "do
something" could further constrain progressive initiatives.
Baldwin's gotten a number of co-sponsors for her resolution --
including a few Republicans. It's important that single-payer backers
sign on now, as part of the broader push to make sure that if the feds
fail us, states can lead.
Washington may not give us real reform this year. But it should at
least give progressive states a chance to move in the right direction.
The goal of real reformers is clear: a "Medicare for all" single-payer national healthcare system.
Getting there could be a little tough this fall.
But America will get there.
The current system is broken; it fails to serve 45 million Americans
and underserves another 45 million. It costs too much and it delivers
too little to a country where life expectancy rates are rapidly falling
below those of developed nations with universal healthcare programs.
The compromises of a weak "public option" or less are insufficient
to the point of being laughable, and potentially more costly than the
current monstrosity.
So we will get to single-payer.
The only question is how and when.
One answer, perhaps the best, is offered by Congresswoman Tammy
Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, who has proposed and promoted the idea of
allowing states to experiment with different healthcare systems.
Under Baldwin's plan, a progressive state such as Oregon or Vermont
could develop a "Medicare for all" program within its borders. At the
same time, a more traditionally conservative state such as Mississippi
or Alabama could muck around with so-called "medical-savings accounts"
and other gimmicks developed by the insurance industry and its
political mouthpieces.
Then it would be a case of may the best state win -- with the evidence of which model works best developing over time.
Canada went this route, experimenting first with single-payer in Saskatchewan.
Slowly, other provincial governments recognized that the "Medicare
for all" model delivered quality healthcare at affordable prices and
adopted it. And, eventually, the reforms initiated in once province
went national.
Baldwin has introduced a House resolution expressing the determination of the Congress
to facilitate state-based innovation in national healthcare reform. And
she has encouraged moves -- by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and
others -- to insure that this sort of flexibility is a part of any plan
that comes out of the House.
This is important, since federal rules regarding Medicare and other
programs can limit the options for states. And a mangled healthcare
reform plan passed in rush by legislators who just want to "do
something" could further constrain progressive initiatives.
Baldwin's gotten a number of co-sponsors for her resolution --
including a few Republicans. It's important that single-payer backers
sign on now, as part of the broader push to make sure that if the feds
fail us, states can lead.
Washington may not give us real reform this year. But it should at
least give progressive states a chance to move in the right direction.