![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Annoying internet morning. Got this funky online scan warning about trojan worm - then it kept trying to force me to download an anti-virus system with no verifiable publisher which could damage my system. Took me forever to close the thing. But first I made Trend Micro - my computer's anti-virus system do a scan of my computer to hunt for threats.
Am on the fence about editing last post, to clarify points, and to add bits about that bill.
The story of the bill in the Kansas State Legislature is actually factual. More or less.
And it was a bill based on President Clinton's National Health Care Bill. It was sent by Congress to the States, who tried to pass their own versions of it. Senator Walker, who I interned with tried to get support for Clinton's bill, when he couldn't do that, he tried to pass his own version of Clinton's bill. That version was shot down for the following reasons:
1. The Senate Majority - wanted legislation that helped small businesses and would expand their number so they could form alliances to purchase health care. They wanted incremental reform.
2. The press or media at the time were not behind the bill and while they did attend hearings on the reinstatement of the death penalty in Kansas and DUI laws, they did not attend hearings on health care. They basically ignored the measure and devoted little time to them.
3. Financing - the opposition, which was genuinely concerned about health care reform, was opposed to the type of financing the bill would adopt. They feared one state agency would bear the responsibility for all Kansas Residents. Part of the problem was the senators opposed had conflicts of interest. Senator Praeger was married to a health care provider and wanted to be appointed Insurance Commissioner. She supported bills that were slanted towards providers. Other senators had similar issues - they opposed reforms that would alienate key interest groups such as the NFIB. So they passed a competing bill - which did little more than create a legislative oversight committee to discuss health care reform.
4. Garbage-can theory of government or organized anarchy theory - proposed by John Kingdom in the book Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies p. 93 (1984). According to the theory, problems, solutions, politics, and choice opportunities all get thrown into a decision-making arena or in this case the legislature and whatever comes out is what was eventually decided. Walker tried to set an agenda to get his problem looked at and his solution. But he was sucessfully blocked by opposing interests. Under the garbag-can theory, the legislature is unlikely to pass something that does not have strong political support and is not perceived as a problem that must be solved immediately. Health Care Reform at that time had only recently been acknowledged as an inexorable problem and SB521 and HB2699 (Kansas's version of Clinton's bill) which proposed managed competition as the prinicipal remedy are not widely perceived as viable solutions. Also unfortunately the opponents of Clinton's plan, which was similar to Walker's, had managed to turn a large portion of the public against the plan.
5. Senator Bond - the senator opposed to the plan, stated in articles in the newspapers that the funding of the bill was highly questionable and it appeared to give the state a lot of power over health care distribution. These criticisms added to the general public's fear of more taxes and government control. (Keep in mind that the vast majority of people who immigrated to the US from other countries did so to escape taxes and what they perceived to be unfair government control. The Civil War and the Revolutionary Wars were in part about taxes. OR being told what to do with your money, business, life by a government.)
6. Lobbyists were against it, for a couple of reasons - either it was not broad enough in scope or it gave one entity too much power - as discussed at length in my previous post.
7. Many Senators believed that this was a federal issue and the federal government should handle it. They'd wait on Congress - otherwise known as passing the buck.
Finally, Senator Walker's (for the bill) district - which was mostly farmers in a poor rural area, had needs that contrasted sharply with Senator's Bond (opposing the bill) district which was an affulent suburban area with a lot of small businesses, who feared the additional expense.
What caused the bill to die in Kansas was not that people did not want universal health care per se, but that they disagreed on how to go about it.
(PS: If you read my last post carefully, you know where I stand on this. I interned for Walker and agreed with him. We need univerisal health care. And Canada's system is a viable one, not perfect, but nothing is. And it wouldn't be exactly like Canada's anyway - bigger country, different population, different government. But people are afraid of what they don't understand. And I've heard horror stories about other countries health care systems.
But to be fair? I can tell you quite a few horror stories that rival theirs about the US health care system. My aunt and uncle went bankrupt, when she had cancer. I'd give my left arm for Canada's system. At least they don't drive people into the poor house if the person is unlucky enough to come down with a fatal and/or debilitating illness, as far as I can tell.)
Am on the fence about editing last post, to clarify points, and to add bits about that bill.
The story of the bill in the Kansas State Legislature is actually factual. More or less.
And it was a bill based on President Clinton's National Health Care Bill. It was sent by Congress to the States, who tried to pass their own versions of it. Senator Walker, who I interned with tried to get support for Clinton's bill, when he couldn't do that, he tried to pass his own version of Clinton's bill. That version was shot down for the following reasons:
1. The Senate Majority - wanted legislation that helped small businesses and would expand their number so they could form alliances to purchase health care. They wanted incremental reform.
2. The press or media at the time were not behind the bill and while they did attend hearings on the reinstatement of the death penalty in Kansas and DUI laws, they did not attend hearings on health care. They basically ignored the measure and devoted little time to them.
3. Financing - the opposition, which was genuinely concerned about health care reform, was opposed to the type of financing the bill would adopt. They feared one state agency would bear the responsibility for all Kansas Residents. Part of the problem was the senators opposed had conflicts of interest. Senator Praeger was married to a health care provider and wanted to be appointed Insurance Commissioner. She supported bills that were slanted towards providers. Other senators had similar issues - they opposed reforms that would alienate key interest groups such as the NFIB. So they passed a competing bill - which did little more than create a legislative oversight committee to discuss health care reform.
4. Garbage-can theory of government or organized anarchy theory - proposed by John Kingdom in the book Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies p. 93 (1984). According to the theory, problems, solutions, politics, and choice opportunities all get thrown into a decision-making arena or in this case the legislature and whatever comes out is what was eventually decided. Walker tried to set an agenda to get his problem looked at and his solution. But he was sucessfully blocked by opposing interests. Under the garbag-can theory, the legislature is unlikely to pass something that does not have strong political support and is not perceived as a problem that must be solved immediately. Health Care Reform at that time had only recently been acknowledged as an inexorable problem and SB521 and HB2699 (Kansas's version of Clinton's bill) which proposed managed competition as the prinicipal remedy are not widely perceived as viable solutions. Also unfortunately the opponents of Clinton's plan, which was similar to Walker's, had managed to turn a large portion of the public against the plan.
5. Senator Bond - the senator opposed to the plan, stated in articles in the newspapers that the funding of the bill was highly questionable and it appeared to give the state a lot of power over health care distribution. These criticisms added to the general public's fear of more taxes and government control. (Keep in mind that the vast majority of people who immigrated to the US from other countries did so to escape taxes and what they perceived to be unfair government control. The Civil War and the Revolutionary Wars were in part about taxes. OR being told what to do with your money, business, life by a government.)
6. Lobbyists were against it, for a couple of reasons - either it was not broad enough in scope or it gave one entity too much power - as discussed at length in my previous post.
7. Many Senators believed that this was a federal issue and the federal government should handle it. They'd wait on Congress - otherwise known as passing the buck.
Finally, Senator Walker's (for the bill) district - which was mostly farmers in a poor rural area, had needs that contrasted sharply with Senator's Bond (opposing the bill) district which was an affulent suburban area with a lot of small businesses, who feared the additional expense.
What caused the bill to die in Kansas was not that people did not want universal health care per se, but that they disagreed on how to go about it.
(PS: If you read my last post carefully, you know where I stand on this. I interned for Walker and agreed with him. We need univerisal health care. And Canada's system is a viable one, not perfect, but nothing is. And it wouldn't be exactly like Canada's anyway - bigger country, different population, different government. But people are afraid of what they don't understand. And I've heard horror stories about other countries health care systems.
But to be fair? I can tell you quite a few horror stories that rival theirs about the US health care system. My aunt and uncle went bankrupt, when she had cancer. I'd give my left arm for Canada's system. At least they don't drive people into the poor house if the person is unlucky enough to come down with a fatal and/or debilitating illness, as far as I can tell.)