Centerfield

On behalf of the people of California, I would like to thank all of you folks in Massachusettes for serving as guinea pigs on this subject. This past fall, our Governor, and the (veto-proof) Democratic majority in the state Assembly put forward a health care plan modelled on yours.

And now the (also veto-proof) Democratic majority in the state Senate has shot it down as unaffordable. Getting California Democrats to decide that anything like this might be too expensive is damn near impossible. (Usually we have to put something to a popular vote to head them off.) But this time, the evidence from Massachusettes was just too overwhelming.

So, again, thank you very, very much. The Federal system working as designed.

Seems to me the best way to do this is have a state program that competes with the private sector.
I think someone tried to put that forward a few years ago in CA but got shot down by other interests.

What do you guys think about the recently released plan of the Committee for Economic Development?

CED Health Plan

They're a business lobby, but they have a fairly unique record of getting outside the narrow interests of business and thinking in terms of what will work broadly for the nation. I get the sense this is bolder than the plans offered by Clinton and Obama.

I've always despaired that both business and labor do little to provide an alternative model to the current mode of health insurance and care.
PArt of it I think is all those interlocking directorships and good ol boys club of CEO's Presidents and Boards of Directors.
If I have a problem with this is that it still relies on existing health care providers.

There's so little real competition and any competition it seem is in collusion with regards to pricing.

I think it would be better if several states tried differing models of a state-run health provider that competes with the private sector. You give it the initial funding necessary to run it, yes I know that's a buttload of money, you use existing infrastructure and perhaps tweak it to conform more to an HMO like Kaiser.
The other idea I have is to restore the health insurance to the non-profits that they used to be more than 20years ago, kill the profit motive as the level of profiteering is pretty high and does not lend itself to providing low cost care.

And of course, my fav bitch and moan, minimize the marketing pharma does. My dentist hates it and he's not alone. He gets hit by multiple salespeople from the same company. There are some states that ban gifts to doctors from pharma and that's good. But something has to be done about the 35 to 50 billion in advertising to the PUBLIC.
It's all geared more towards market hsare, not public education.

Having competitive pricing in medicare wouldn't hurt either.

Anyone have any thoughts on the feasibility of establishing a nationwide non-profit devoted to manufacturing post-patent meds and selling them at cost?

Geez, via Dovebid, Alza just dumped a buttload of pill making equipment and other pharma manufacturing and test gear, including my favorite, the explosion -proof refrigerator.

While this is not a bad idea, the actual manufacturing is quite expensive and would require a lot of money up front. QC, FDA compliance, liability insurance can be costly. It might be better to contract out to DOMESTIC companies or some of the european nations which have as high or higher standards. Some of this would necessitate legislation that Big Pharma would object to.

we could get rid of Pharm D too.