Comments on: Crazy proposals

By: David

David — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 03:37:15 +0000

And back in the day the big city Democratic machines used to provide an array of favors to party members, much like Arafat’s PA did for so many years. If your child needed to a doctor to set a bone and you couldn’t afford it – no problem. If your husband got thrown in the drunk tank and you needed the bail money, or maybe a couple of party thugs to show up down at the precinct and spread a little intimidation around – no problem.

By: Scott McArthur

Scott McArthur — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:45:18 +0000

Do it Do it Do it

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:52:36 +0000

“Besides lobbying against gun control, they sponsor shooting competitions, gun safety classes, even painting contests.” Actually, the NRA is VERY big on insurance: http://www.nrahq.org/givejoinhelp/membership/benefits.asp I’d say the suggestion has two basic problems for you Democrats: First, you’d end up recruiting a lot of people who didn’t agree with you. Second, if it worked, you’d be proving why the government didn’t have to get involved!

By: nic

nic — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:27:31 +0000

I don’t think you can graft on to the US system something which developed in an entirely different system for which privatising health care was the crazy idea. They were already available to everyone, what parties would offer were extras. Besides, in the European context you refer to, party membership meant something more than just paying a fee. It was unthinkable for someone not sharing the ideas of that party to join just as a kind of investment, because it wasn’t an investment. It was more like a cooperative than an insurance plan. So you already have a completely different mentality there. We’re also talking of parties where ideological differences were deeper than Republicans vs. Democrats, while at the same time all enjoyed heavy public funding and the notion that certain services should be provided by public organisations. There is a reason why no party in the US ever thought of something like this, it’s because there is no cultural or political background for it, and you can’t create it from scratch by starting from the end result… You’re just thinking of a party taking on a role of service providers like they were yet another private company, and I honestly can’t see the point of that.

By: ajay

ajay — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:07:38 +0000

Fascinating idea. I don’t know much about the economics of private health care, but from a political point of view this is gold dust. While contributors above have mentioned various 19th century socialist parties with similar plans (social democrats, Workers’ Circle and so on), I’m amazed no one has brought up a party that is doing exactly this right now, with terrific grass roots results: Hezbollah. One of the main reasons for the tremendous success of radical Islamic parties in the Middle East is their ability to offer social services – primarily education, but also healthcare and relief – which the official government is typically either too poor, too corrupt or too inefficient to provide. If you want your children educated, and cannot afford the elite schools, they will either go to the local religious school or not at all. If you cannot afford a doctor’s bill, the local mosque/Hezbollah branch will help. If you are indigent, you will receive charity; if struck by disaster such as fire, you will receive relief; and it will all come not from the government but from Hezbollah. Imagine the boost this gives the Party of God and the damage it does to the ‘official’ government, whose incompetence is thrown into sharp relief. Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that the Democrats should follow the Hezbollah/NLF route and set up parallel courts, local governments and tax collection networks; nor that they should set up ‘liberated areas’ where the writ of the capital does not run, after the pattern of the Bekaa Valley. Although the Bekaa, like many Democratic voters, is strongly in favour of the legalised growing of cannabis…

By: Ragout

Ragout — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:51:44 +0000

I almost forgot: probably the organization that’s curently most successful in the US with combining services and advocacy is the NRA. Besides lobbying against gun control, they sponsor shooting competitions, gun safety classes, even painting contests. Hey, that’s a more modest plan for the DNC. How about sponsoring an art contest?

By: Ragout

Ragout — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:39:47 +0000

I don’t believe the Democrats could run a better insurance plan than the private sector or nonprofits like Kaiser. Though of course the government could and does. It’s called Medicare. Despite that, I think providing these kind of services might be a good idea, if seen as a way to educate/progadandize members about related political issues. The AARP, Kaiser, and Fannie Mae (the last two through their foundations) are examples of this kind of thing.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:20:41 +0000

Actually, this is exactly what mutual aid societies like the Workmen’s Circle did around the turn of the last century. The WC wasn’t a union or a party, but a support system for workers—members had to belong to a union and a socialist party as a precondition for membership. Once in, they got life insurance, strike relief, a burial plot, educational programs, and as the years went on, summer camps and children’s programs as well (actually, they still offer some of these services: see http://www.circle.org/join.shtml). Lots of organizations offered similar services, although as their memberships grew and the actuarial realities of insuring that many people got too overwhelming, those that didn’t fold typically transferred the insurance options to third-party insurers—still a cheaper option than providing for your own health care! Maybe a little mutual aid is what’s needed for left-minded folk altogether—insurance, sure, but also some sense of community might be helpful, too.

By: kmeson

kmeson — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 05:11:06 +0000

Blue State, Blue Sheild?

By: Brennan

Brennan — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 04:24:36 +0000

There’s some experimentation going on right now with a AARP-style union backed group. AARP makes most of its money not from dues but from the health care packages and discount cards it offers. The experiment, to my knowledge, is offering a similar package to working people for the same sort of minimal dues. The extra money goes to fund the same sort of advocacy for workers that AARP does for seniors. We’ll see if anything comes of it. This might be the only effective way to fight for better treatment of workers in right to work states throughout the South and West.

By: Mike Huben

Mike Huben — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:52:49 +0000

Unions could implement health plans as a recruiting tool for breaking in to resisting employers such as Walmart. A union could hire Kaiser P or some other insurance company to provide a low-cost, minimal health insurance to employees of large companies like Walmart which don’t offer benefits and are anti-union. If the offering is good (or perhaps slightly subsidized by the union), enough employees could be signed up to force unionization and collective bargaining. This could start re-energizing membership numbers for unions.

By: Jon H

Jon H — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:25:04 +0000

pbish writes: “If the Democratic party stands for government sponsored, single-payer health care for at least the portion of citizens who choose to opt into it, how does this idea demonstrate that commitment?” Um, I’d rather the Democratic party stand for good, affordable healthcare, however it is achieved. Realistically, the Democrats are unlikely to achieve single-payer any time this decade or next. So they might as well do something that they can achieve, which can’t be blocked by the Republicans. An ideological attachment to a particular approach doesn’t seem to be very useful, especially in the current political climate in Washington. Clinging to single-payer, while unable to enact it, doesn’t improve anyone’s health, does it? On the other hand, a Democratic Party insurance operation, like the one being discussed, would provide an excellent training ground for future designers and administrators of a national healthcare program.

By: Jon H

Jon H — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:14:39 +0000

Lindsay writes: “A lot of Republicans would join for the cheap health insurance and vote Republican anyway. ” So let them. Keep the insurance operation mostly separate from the party itself, and make it mostly party-neutral. If Republicans want to join up, great. It makes the pool of insured people even larger, helping with the economics of the situation. Especially if they’re healthy. (Actually, though, I really can’t see many Republicans joining up, even if it’s a good deal financially. They vote against their interests, why would they act any differently in this case?) Even if the insurance weren’t limited to registered Democrats, the Democratic party would still benefit. The mailing list would be fantastic, for one thing. Also, if the healthcare thing’s name included the words “Democratic Party”, advertising of the insurance plan, and media coverage of it, would gain attention for the party itself.

By: william

william — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:37:43 +0000

If I remember correctly, the Texas Democratic Party recently did such a thing. Or at least proposed the idea in one of its mailings. Looking for a link . . .

By: Vaughn Hopkins

Vaughn Hopkins — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:41:30 +0000

Kaiser Health plans are run on a non-profit basis and always have been. I belong to one which is partly subsidized by my former employer – I’m retired. My wife and I together pay almost $400 a month. I really doubt that a HMO type plan could be developed for less than that unless it excluded large areas of health care. It is definitely not where a political party should go. However, the Democratic Party could negotiate a group rate for its members with an existing HMO or HMO’s, and that could be a real money saver which could attract lots of Democrats.