- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I just reread the Proposal discussion on Amendment 69. For some reason I seem to have been terribly confused and BLOCKed approval when I thought I was blocking approval and forcing a vote on the dismissal of Bill Bartlett. Or else the Forum got messed up. GPPPR stood aside on the Amendment 69 till be had a democratic discussion and debate then voted to endorse it. Thus I can see no vote against this proposal to endorse 69. I believe we should immediately go to a revote if necessary so that the State Party endorses this Amendment ASAP. I am confident that under a vote this proposal would pass overwhelmingly and would be a great support to the Jill STein and Arn Menconi campaigns as well as to the Amendment itself.
For reference this si item #003-16 currently located in Proposal Agreement Seeking.I'll reread also and then comment.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
I reread the proposal and the comments. I'd like to see a brief period of civil discussion for the purpose of education, and then if sufficient agreement, go to a vote. Where there are objections, it would help to have specific text references.One concern I've heard is that Medicare recipients may be paying twice, so I looked into that a little. BTW - Medicare is a little complicated. My summary understanding begins with the complex nature of Medicare. The added tax would be new, as I understand it, for people who currently do not have supplemental coverage. My understanding is that Amendment 69 essentially provides the coverage that supplemental coverage would. So if you have Medicare, or will soon, and have or plan to have supplemental coverage (Part B, kinda necessary in my opinion), then you will not be paying "twice", although the exact differences in cost (I think the costs are similar) are far beyond what I have time to research. On the other hand, if you do not have or plan to have supplemental coverage (Part A only) then you will be paying more under A69, but will get the coverage. On the other hand, without supplemental coverage (Plan B), Medicare has some big gaps.I think there is no question that most if not all Greens want single payer. Medicare for all sounds nice, but even that certainly does not go far enough. Everyone should have health care, not insurance, for most ailments and preventive care without having to buy supplemental insurance. Added insurance should be for luxuries, like single occupancy hospital rooms. I think we will not get single payer in one fell swoop. It will be a process. Amendment 69 looks like a good first step to me. Keep in mind that we are currently budget-limited by other systemic issues that also need to be addressed, and hence the need for A69 to be essentially self-funding through a tax. Get rid of central banks and usury interest and that problem goes away, but we are not there yet and in the meantime do need healthcare. Once A69 is in place, then it seems to me that we then have a potential voice for adding coverage for more ailments and preventive care.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.