* The Oregon Health Plan would cover every child with Universal Health Coverage based on their families ability to pay.

* Every Oregonian would receive a wellness and prevention benefit. Check-ups, visits to clinics, visits to Primary HealthCare Providers and common medical screening will be available for a nominal co-pay based on your ability to pay. Health care experts and science would determine which screenings and tests would be available under the Plan

* The Oregon Health Plan would cover catastrophic illness with a stop/loss of $100,000. Oregonians would be required to sign a living will or similar such document to qualify. Hospice care would be part of this program

* The Health Insurance Industry and Medicaid would cover everything in between with some caveats. They must provide coverage for Mental Health and Women’s Reproductive Health.

* We’ll reduce prescription drug costs by allowing individuals and small businesses to benefit from the state’s bulk purchasing power.

* The Oregon Health Care Plan and the Health Insurance Industry would form a public/private Insurance company to cover those with chronic disease or those who would not be able to receive Health Insurance except at an exorbitant rate due to pre-existing conditions.

I swear I saw Don Evans during a break between shows on PBS make a business announcement, saying how small business could make money by selling their small business to forigeners. I felt like he was encouraging the further sell out of American businesses.

He is. That’s something to keep an eye on.

Sorry I just ran across this thread—somehow in holidaying I didn’t notice that Hacker’s book was on the slate; my copy is on the way, though. I notice that up in comment 59, Henry Farrell takes on the “individaul choice” meme. His example of the forced choice of privatized power companies is wonderful for a discussion of risk-shifting, because it illustrates that privatization—especially of utilities and the like where the demand is pretty inflexible, while the options for purchase at best are fairly few—can become a forced choice for consumers about what level of risk they have to accept.

Now, continuing the electric power example, there might be some consumers out there for whom the choice of the chartreuse company over the taupe one is more “meaningful” than the choice between a system where, say, a municipal or publically regulated utility company is required by law to commit to a well-defined price policy for a known period of time. However, in the name of trying to stay below my quick-rising anger level, please accept my apology for slipping into the Allardician mode of many economics textbook writers: I will leave the detailed analysis of the merits of the choice-as-a-universal-good argument for privatizing many goods whose markets work like public utilities, to the reader, as an exercise.

And Henry, thanks as always for doing an amazing job. It’s a great book, thanks so much for bringing it here today. I hope its influence becomes as pervasive as we all hope.

Don’t forget to close that loop. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are perceived as (and sometimes are) big contributors to Democrats at the state level. Cap punis = defund the left.

It’s all a seamless web. Which is fine if you’re a spider. If you’re a fly, not so much.

I can see the advertising campaign now..

A trapeze artist on his perch, one hand grasps the bar. A look of determination on his face.

He steps out, swings higher..higher.. and goes into a triple twisting backwards flip…turns to grasp his partner… and misses.

…Falls into a net…

Narration: With the right safety net, he can go for it without worrying that a miss will ruin his life. You deserve the same.

There should be a safety net which doesn’t allow these things to happen. There isn’t. It doesn’t have to be this way. It shouldn’t be this way. And if the right things happen, it won’t be this way in the future.

From Jacob:

Over the next two years, Democrats should use their newfound power over the agenda to set goals and formulate ideas that force Republicans to take a stand on the domestic issue of our day: the economic insecurity of the American middle class. No 50-point programs. No triangulating targeted measures. Just one powerful vision, backed up by bold ideas on health care, retirement and job security, and family finances.

So repeat after us: “providing security to expand opportunity.” Try it, you’ll like it — and more important, so will the typical American voter.

I think we have our agenda for the next two years.

Your prescription for a health policy — “employers should be given a choice between providing coverage on their own or buying into an improved Medicare program for a bargain price” — is consistent with what seems to work in electricity systems — allow folks who want to choose, to choose private suppliers they select at offered prices; but anyone who doesn’t choose purchases from a large pool that obtains the best price for all. All receive basic electricity [or health] service, but some pay their selected provider at the offered price, while others pay the pool price (and pay it to the pool’s billing agent, which might be your local utility [or health care provider]).

One problem is that the health model depends on being employed; some other system is needed for the unemployed, and we may need special rules for small businesses and/or self-employed — the MA model, perhaps? I’d prefer the Medicare — the common pool — model for all of these.

This model works fine in electricity and covers everyone without exception; it is more complex in health, because health service is not a single commodity (electricity is); it is a changing mix of services and products for each patient. But Medicare sorts this out for some, and I see no reason it couldn’t do it for others.

Again, thanks for coming by, and thanks for the great book.

Katherine – there are real debates to be had in the US as elsewhere over how social programs will deal with demographic changes etc. The point, as I see it, is that these don’t have much to do with the kinds of proposals that were being floated to privatize Social Security, which, far from saving money, would have had horrifyingly large transition costs. See the interesting back-and-forth between Brad DeLong and Duncan Black today.

Mary, thanks for talking about your difficult and ongoing set of personal circumstances. It probably doesn’t make it easier that it’s a set of experiences that many people share, with differences in the details. The key take home point from Jacob’s book is that there are political solutions which, even if they aren’t perfect, would provide a better set of protections for you and many others. This is a deeply personal story, but it’s also a political one. There should be a safety net which doesn’t allow these things to happen. There isn’t. It doesn’t have to be this way. It shouldn’t be this way. And if the right things happen, it won’t be this way in the future. Thanks to everyone from me.