Rick Weiland caféstormed west on I-90 yesterday, hitting Hartford, Humboldt, Montrose, Salem, Alexandria, and Mitchell. He's on track to have visited 50 towns by Saturday. Gee, DSCC, if you have a better primary candidate, he or she will have some catching up to do.
Any D.C. anointee will also have to catch up with Weiland on policy. In Mitchell yesterday, Weiland pitched this policy stunner:
On Obamacare, Weiland said he is concerned with the amount of input large health care companies had on the legislation. Every citizen should be given the opportunity to buy into Medicare if they want, he said [Chris Mueller, "Weiland Betting on Grassroots Campaign," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2013.08.02].
Dang: Weiland is endorsing the universal public option, a plan that the CBO has said could save Uncle Sam money. That's not full-tilt socialized medicine. It's not quite the Medicare E—Medicare for Everyone—that George McGovern advocated. Call it Medicare E-Prime: Medicare for everyone who wants it.
I want it. And I'm pretty sure I want Weiland. Now if we can just get Rick on the record on women's reproductive rights and bodily autonomy.
Rick is onto something now! His full support of Healthcare Reform is what is needed to show that he is serious about helping not only our state, but the rest of the country as well. I was a little reluctant to give him my full support until I heard what he has just said and now am convinced that he is the real deal. Medicare for all is exactly what we need and have needed for some time. We give the insurance racket too much power and they have no business in our business. We could save at least 25% of each dollar spent on healthcare, by eliminating them altogether. The health insurance industry has passed its shelf life.
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/the_storied_baucus-daschle_feud
http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/health-insurance-penalty-escape-clause/
http://mtcowgirl.com/2013/07/29/ap-montana-target-of-national-republican-party-intervention/#comment-147393
Let insurance companies offer supplemental coverage. Universal single provider would save hospitals a chunk of administrative costs.
Also, employers would not be playing games with hours and benefits.
Interested party, I am trying to follow what you are trying to tell us with your links and can only come up with this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwq73WHsCM0
Just an FYI, as a physician, I spend very little time preauthorizing medication or test or procedures for my Medicare patients. However, a study done by the AMA puts a cost of around $70,000 per physician in the country each year due to loss in productivity, time spent and nurses wages for preauthorizing medications, procedures, bla, bla, bla....cost. All this for the profit of private insurance companies.
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/06/01/bil20601.htm
I think it is a great idea. However, politically I could see the Right making hay from this not only from a socialist angle, but also from the standpoint that they would use such an idea to scare the elderly into thinking that the Left was ruining their Medicare or somehow spending their Medicare dollars and services at their cost and to the benefit of those under 65.
Regardless, I believe the dynamics of ObamaCare will eventually create a marriage between Medicaid, Medicare, and the new health insurance exchanges. If it is done in incremental stages, like so many progressive things are done in our history, it could hopefully disarm the Right's socialist card.
.... and the Right's scare tactics too....
Winston, I'm going to say the same thing to you that I said to Dems at the 2010 state convention. At that convention, I proposed a resolution supporting George McGovern's call for Medicare for Everyone. Wise and pragmatic Dems said the party didn't dare endorse that statement, because Republicans would use it to take us out at the kneecaps. I replied that the Right was already whacking our kneecaps with cries of socialized health care. There's no running from that attack, so we might as well meet it and beat it by embracing what we know to be moral and effective policy. If Rick Weiland (like his brother above!) is willing to take that haymaker and punch back, that's all the more reason for us Dems to back him.
Cory, I totally embrace your attitude about this, but I am just commenting about what will most likely happen, not what should happen.... As far as I am concerned, ObamaCare, as an example, is a foster child, which Democrats in its creation, the defending of it, and its implementation have shunned and I do not think that this is going to change anytime soon within the Democratic Party leadership, and this is the political vehicle we would be forced to work with if we were to attempt to broaden Medicare significantly in the near future.
Agreed: politically we face a fight, no matter what. We will have more fun waging that fight, and we will win more people with that fight, if we fight full-tilt for something than if we try to make it look like we're not fighting for something.