Skip to main content

Kowalko and Jaques recycle five-year-old State single-payer plan as election-year gambit

Don't kid yourself.  Even the friendly audience at Delawareliberal knows that John Kowalko and Earl Jaques have not introduced HB 392 (Single-payer health care) in a serious attempt to get it passed this year.


El Somnabulo portrays it as "essentially a ’shot across the bow’ for next year," but the comment by Democratic nominee for Health Insurance Commissioner, Mitch Crane, is more instructive.  Mitch immediately jumps on the idea of endorsing single-payer healthcare, a move that is of course completely unrelated to his election campaign, right?


Sure, any moment now they will be re-assuring us that this is all about principle and not about creating an election issue out of a bill that is actually at least five years old.


That's right.  Virtually the same bill, Dr. Floyd McDowell's old single-payer plan that was SB 177 back in 2007 is back yet again.  (At the time this blog had just started and nobody was really reading it yet, I dissected that bill.)


It's the same bill, down to the same Delaware Health Security Authority that McDowell proposed.


At a quick read I cannot even see where it has been materially changed from the original edition.


So this is not new, and it was not terribly popular except with a few folks the first time around.


Here's how Liberalgeek of Delawareliberal himself dismissed the idea about six months ago, in his preliminary obituary for Occupy Delaware:
Delaware has a number of these helpful oldsters that want to grind the same old axes that they have been grinding for decades. One of them has even been on several radio stations in the past week presenting their “demands”. I haven’t heard the demands, but I’ll gander a few guesses about what they are, Implementing Floyd McDowell’s single payer plan, satellite news access for everyone and the freeing of all Palestinian prisoners. I’m sure she has others, but I really can’t stand to listen to her spout off any more, and neither can anyone else.
So while Mitch Crane is posturing, and Kowalko/Jaques are preening, let's be realistic and admit that they haven't done anything particularly new or daring, and don't even seem to have bothered to do anything more than cut and paste something that somebody else wrote and never managed to build a consensus for . . . a long time ago.


What this is all about is what it is always all about . . . election year posturing.

Comments

delacrat said…
Steve,

Would you agree that every Delaware resident having single-payer health care is preferable to some Delaware residents not having any health care of any kind?

delacrat
delacrat

Honest answer (leaving the funding mechanism aside for the moment): I'd have to know whether the system compromised or reduced the quality of care to those who already have care now or not. (Did that make grammatical sense, I'm tired).

In other words, it is a cost benefit analysis. Show me the metric and I'll give you a straight answer.
tom said…
My answer to delacrat's question is posted on the LPD website.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and