Among plenty of other thoughtful, well staked-out positions, MA Senate candidate Marisa DeFranco is a staunch advocate of single-payer, as she made clear in a short interview with Emily Rooney on Greater Boston last night:
When asked whether she supports single payer, Elizabeth Warren had this to say: “I think the urgent question now is whether we’re going to be able to hold on to the health care reforms that just passed – parents can keep their kids on their health insurance longer, insurance companies can’t discriminate because of preexisting conditions, seniors get free health care check-ups. Those are the basic rights of our new health care system and there are a lot of people who want to repeal them. I think we need to focus on protecting them and finding new ways to lower costs, which are still too high.”
In other words, expect no pressure from me to push for a healthcare system that isn’t rooted in profit. Play defense. That’s not, under any rubric, the definition of a “PROGRESS-ive.”
demredsox says
That’s a very very good point.
edgarthearmenian says
call it Universal Medicare? Probably every family in America has an older relative on Medicare; they understand how important health care coverage is and would support Medicare for all.
bigmike says
Great. Elizabeth Warren says let’s double-down on Obamney Care.
That makes sense, since the same conservative Senators who 1) killed the public option despite 70% public approval, and 2) won’t even discuss single-payer, despite widespread interest in the idea are the some of her biggest campaign contributors.
No compassionate human being is against the positive aspects of Health Care Reform. The problem, for real progressives, is that Health Care Reform is woefully inadequate. That’s no surprise either — today’s Dems are basically committed to fighting for Bob Dole’s 1996 health care proposal (universal coverage for all via a mandate to purchase for profit health insurance).
mski011 says
I like it a lot actually. However, I also think that if Massachusetts liked it that much we could probably have had after four years of the Patrick Administration and with Vermont and Montana moving toward doing just that.
However, I also think that a time for transition is also important. There are many problems with ACA and Mass HCR, but the fact is you can look to a nation like Germany that has universal health care, but retains an insurance component. I do not necessarily think that should be the way things remain ad infinitum in the US, but I don’t think a transition period short to medium term with the basic outlines of the system is a problem.
Moreover, before we embark on universal health care we need to get costs under control, read change how health care is paid for. We have not done that in Massachusetts yet (thank you Robert DeLeo), and we have not done in the nation yet. If we were to just push now, without these reforms first, we’ll just set ourselves up for the R’s to come with the hatchets in the future the way they have already come for Medicare.
theloquaciousliberal says
Your comments reiterate both the conservatives lie that “RomneyCare” and “ObamaCare” are simply about the individual mandate and the far-left like that the reforms are mostly about subsidizing the purchase of private insurance.
The largely-undefended reality is that both the Massachusetts health care reform and the national health care reform are primarily centered around expanding eligibility for Medicaid. In Massachusetts, the vast majority – over 85% – of the newly insured (since RomneyCare’s implementation) are new Medicaid and CommCare enrollees who now receive nearly 100% subsidized, *public* coverage.
Meanwhile, analysis of the federal health reform bill indicates that at least 50% of the newly insured will be due to the massive Medicaid eligibility expansion included in the ACA. A percentage that may very will turn out to be an underestimate and certainly would be much higher without the individual mandate.
Both RomneyCare and ObamaCare are at least mostly about expanding Medicaid and other public health insurance programs. It’s fine to downplay this when arguing with the right but irritating to have to keep re-emphasizing this when debating with the far-left.
Christopher says
…and that was a large part of my reason for supporting Jamie Eldridge for Congress in 2007 and O’Reilly over Kerry in 2008. I’m also glad to see a candidate this time around keeping that discussion on the table. For now, though, with some progress made that wasn’t present in 2007 and 2008, I’m going with the one with the expertise to address our economic crisis and knows exactly how we got into this mess.
Charley on the MTA says
Let’s say Marisa DiFranco wins the nomination and blows the doors off Scott Brown in the general. She goes to the Senate. The Senate is chockful of Republicans who want to kill the PPACA (aka “Obamacare”). Does Marisa DiFranco …
a.) Go to the mats trying to save the consumer and patient protections, the subsidies, the efficiencies and humane regulations of the PPACA?
b.) Say essentially, right on and good riddance, it’s a fraud anyway and only single-payer will truly solve our problems? Or,
c.) Go to the mats “guarding the change”, as it were, while organizing and holding out for improvement over the long-term (i.e. a public option)?
If the answer is b.), then I would run away screaming from her campaign and tell everyone I can to do the same. That’s equal to being a tool of the GOP.
Other than that it’s all good.