"Hopefully, we're not even going to have to try."

I assume the "not" is referring to "imagine" and not "passing universal health care?" That statement seemed a big ambiguous.

Ted's both a good partisan and a good compromiser when necessary to make legislative progress. I will be harder for Dems to stray from the herd and harder for GOP wolves to attack because of his active work on a new healthcare insurance bill. In that sense he'll be the loyal, inexhaustible sheepdog that is needed to get the job done, for which we can all be thankful. He'll be nipping at ankles, barking when necessary, and ignoring the bleats of the weak at heart.

Here's hoping that Ted, Obama and all others involved in helpful ways can look forward to the Ted Kennedy National Health Insurance Act of 2009.

Last time Teddy tried to reform the system he almost destroyed it, will he succeed in finally killing it and our economy this time?

Just five years after the HMO Act of 1973 was signed into law, the U.S. Senate Committee on Human Resources, Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research, held a hearing to discuss amending the Act. Following are excerpts from Senator Ted Kennedy's opening statement at the March 3, 1978 hearing:

"Today the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research holds hearings on proposed amendments to federal statutes supporting the development of health maintenance organizations...These amendments would extend and strengthen current authorities supporting HMOs in this country....

"As the author of the first HMO bill ever to pass the Senate, I find this spreading support for HMOs truly gratifying. Just a few years ago, proponents of health maintenance organizations faced bitter opposition from organized medicine. And just a few years ago, congressional advocates of HMOs faced an administration which was long on HMO rhetoric, but very short on action.

"The current revival of the HMO movement should come as no surprise. HMOs have proven themselves again and again to be effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering health care of the highest quality. HMOs cut hospital utilization by an average of 20 to 25 percent compared to the fee-for-service sector. They cut the total cost of health care by anywhere from 10 to 30 percent. And they accomplish these savings without compromising the quality of care they provide their members.

"In fact, many medical experts argue that the peer review built into group practice in the HMO setting promotes a quality of care superior to that found in the traditional health care system.... "In our enthusiasm to see HMOs proliferate throughout this country we should not lose sight of the need to guarantee the quality and integrity of the prepaid plans we create."1

http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Choice/ThenAndNow.html

Ezra your a self proclaimed expert on Healthcare, does Teddy still gush over HMOs or did he admit he screwed up royally and passing a Federal Law that MADE employers offer HMOs and subsidizing them so they could undercut the competition was a bad idea?

In the military when someone screws up as bad as Kennedy did with HMOs it kills their careers, in progressive politics apparently you let them keep trying till they finally get it right?

People died becuase of his decisions, not just the ones he drove off bridges but also those that didn't choose to trust their lives to him.

Liberal support of failures is unwavering

God knows I'm not the health care expert, but obviously the alternative to HMOs was not universal healthcare, but less efficient and affordable forms of private care. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Kennedy would have preferred universal care back in 1978 (and that Nate wouldn't have).

I really meant "private insurance," not "private care.

No one has commented upon how Kennedy himself dealt with his cancer: he convened leading specialists from around the country, and then flew to Duke where he was operated on RIGHT AWAY -- no waiting for a spot in the leading surgeon's schedule. I would like to know whether that kind of care will be available to people who can afford it under the new regime. These people, like the Clintons, full of "plans" for how everyone's life should go, need to have their own lives observed. Had the Clinton healthcare putsch succeeded, needless to say the kind of lavish, no holds barred attention Kennedy's sickness was given, would have landed the caregivers and receivers in lockup.

Good point one of many. Obviously the correct policy is to just not allow poor people to get treatment, because they slow down the system for when richer people need it. Truly freedom means only the well off can be healthy.

huh? I don't think you got my point. Here it is: someone who has treated himself to healthcare options his plan would deny to others has lost some standing to dictate to others. Or maybe not. Al Gore's energy bill is apparently the size of a small suburb's -- but no one raises a peep. A neat feature of all these plans is the personal exemption of the planner from any hardship he imposes upon others. Is that not clear yet?

godoggo,

I'll forgive you for not knowing this because the supposed experts like Ezra and the MSM would never dare tell you the truth.

HMOs where the congressional attempt at Universal Care.

It's much longer then I have time for now but in brief;
Congress knew rationing care will be necessary, they also know being the ones to make those decisions is political death.

They not only envisioned, but back then clearly outlined, a plan where everyone was covered by HMOs. HMOs would receive a substantial portion of their funding from congress. This would give congress the ability to ration care by manipulating the funding. In order to break even or make money the HMOs would have to cut back care. Congress ultimately would have complete control of the financial cost of healthcare and be insinuated from the blame.

The HMO Act of 1973 was the first step to this goal. Every few years after they passed more laws that drove more people into HMOs, subsidized them, or gave them unfair market advantage. How many Liberals use to scream about ERISA protecting HMOs from State regulation and thus being free to deny care and kill people. The fact that the idiots on the left of the isle can’t trace this back to Ted Kennedy and their elected congressman and continued to elect these people is beyond me. Ted Kennedy told you that you all belonged in an HMO and sooner or later they would get you there.

Everything progressed greatly through the 80s and early 90s with HMO market share skyrocketing. That’s what finally did them in. Smart people in the business and employers had been saying since 1970 HMOs where a bad idea. Like the sheep you are though as soon as Kennedy stood up and told you;

“HMOs have proven themselves again and again to be effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering health care of the highest quality. HMOs cut hospital utilization by an average of 20 to 25 percent compared to the fee-for-service sector. They cut the total cost of health care by anywhere from 10 to 30 percent. And they accomplish these savings without compromising the quality of care they provide their members.”

You baaaaed right along till it was you or your family members suffering at the hand of an HMO, then suddenly you morons woke up and realized; damn HMOs suck. Any intelligent sane person would immediately go to the person that tricked them into the HMO in the first place and made it a Federal Law employers offer them, no not the progressives, you looked right past those 20 years of deceit and asked Teddy to please help you with your problem.

On the other hand he more then any other person in the world is responsible for the HMO mess so he should have the answer…right?....suckers…..

Since you didn’t ask I’ll offer, I prefer Universal availability, anyone that chooses or desires to purchase insurance has affordable options. This is most efficiently delivered through an employer mandate, every employer offers insurance. Small employers are allowed to join association health plans, i.e. Union Taft Hartley plans for non unions. Minimum deductible of 1K anything below that isn’t insurance.

I believe in the freedom to purchase care you want, not laws to force you to purchase care you can’t afford.

I believe in the freedom to get fat.

fatter

or fattester

Ted's preparing to use his own demise to pass universal health care. What a legacy! I'm serious.

one of many -

Rich people are always going to have big piles of stuff, more stuff than poor people have. That's not evidence of hypocrisy, it's the way the world is (until the revolution).

But if cap-and-trade raises the price of carbon, (re: Al Gore) he will still be able to afford a lot more of it than you. This says nothing about the intrinsic value of cap-and-trade, but sounds like an intellecutally dishonest attempt to denigrate a policy by smearing Mr. Gore's (or Senator Kennedy's)intentions.

In your world are the only non-hypocrites those who forsake everything that would provide more for them more than that possessed by the most poverty-stricken among us? Remind John McCain of that sometime as he's running up another three-quarter-million-dollar monthly VISA bill.