Why are there so many well-established and convincing looking coalitions and websites which agree that the only realistic possibility for achieveing UHC is by sticking with incremental reform, if this is such a foolish idea?
The insurance industry is one of the most profit-rich and powerful (number of lobbyists) in the nation. So we should expect that anything of which they are supportive looks very professional and convincing (they can put whole offices to work putting out slick brochures with the dollars they extract from our health care system). They are very much in favor of incremental health reform, especially if they are able to secure public subsidies to add additional programs. Our strategies for change must acknowledge the lobbying power of industries. Having already “cherry-picked” the most healthy clients (the least likely to need any serious medical interventions) they now would like to “reluctantly” add programs to insure other populations. “Reluctantly” because they will only do so when induced by public subsidies for doing so. They expect to make the same profits, then, off these more at-risk populations as they have made from the more healthy. We already pay by our taxes for the nation’s m
Related Questions
- Why are there so many well-established and convincing looking coalitions and websites which agree that the only realistic possibility for achieveing UHC is by sticking with incremental reform, if this is such a foolish idea?
- is a criminal prosecution of Tony Blair or George W. Bush for the Iraq war a realistic possibility?
- Palin, an avowed ight to lifeer, did agree to the possibility of aborting the fetus?
