Do you support Single-Payer health care for America?

[lib_wit_it]

http://www.healthcare-now.org/

[valerief]

1. It's a no-brainer! nt

[lib_wit_it]

4. It seems to be an abandoned hope, even here at DU. The poll is meant to rally progressive will!

[patrice]

2. It's ALL about cost efficiencies AND expanding services and coverage. There's NO other way.

[patrice]

3. Health Care SHOULD be part of what it means to be "American"! So it's also about Patriotism.

[Burma Jones]

5. Single Payer Health Care is GOOD FOR BUSINESS

I assume we already all agree that it's the ethical thing to do......

[TahitiNut]

6. Yup. But we'll have to find another way to get 'volunteers' in the military.

Anyone who doesn't comprehend that health care is a military recruiting tool of HUGE impact isn't paying attention.

[surrealAmerican]

49. Don't worry. With unemployment continuing to rise ...

... the military is still the only job a lot of people can get.

[Thothmes]

93. Exactly how many 18 or 19

year olds do you know that would enlist in the army for "free health care". Young people generally do not care about such things. These concerns come later in a persons career when they have a family. They are even more important when a person is getting ready to retire. But they are not a strong enlistment tool.

[scarletwoman]

7. k&r -- And I'd certainly like to see the "no" voters explain their votes.

I hope other people will keep this poll kicked up. Then let's start talking strategy for getting what we want.

sw

edited because now there's two "no" votes -- WTF?

[lib_wit_it]

9. How about sharing the Healthcare NOW! link with our personal contacts and threatening

all those "If you don't forward this to everyone you know" catastrophes like exploding cars and bad hair days, etc.?
http://www.healthcare-now.org/

[scarletwoman]

10. I don't believe in threatening people. I either cajole or mock. (nt)

[lib_wit_it]

22. Mock and cajole away!

[HughBeaumont]

19. This could explain the "no" votes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5294499&mesg_id=5296652

[Sebastian Doyle]

29. I'd like for them to disclose who is paying them to be here to vote against it

Just like the people who defend Wall Street, bash unions, claim high fructose corn poison is nectar from the bosom of Christ Himself, etc.

[Buns_of_Fire]

8. It's ethical, it's right, it's good for businesses...

...but it's going to be a rough, hard fight so long as the opponents of it keep painting it as "single PROVIDER" as opposed to "single PAYER."

[ZombieHorde]

11. Has Obama explained his reason(s) for not supporting single-payer health care? nt

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I wish people would stop confusing "single payer" with...

"universal." It would make the whole process so much simpler.

The three largest health plans in the country are Federal plans and while they certainly do help, none of them are anything close to what the best European plans have. Medicare, the largest, pretty much requires huge copays, medigap coverage, leaves huge gaps in coverage that are never closed, and after all that pays providers so little that many are refusing Medicare patients, just as many have been refusing Medicaid patients for years. Expanding this system doesn't seem to be the way to go to get better overall healthcare.

The successful mixed public/private plans of France, Italy, and Germany are being ignored as we look only to Canada for advice. France and Italy, FWIW, are rated by WHO as first and second worldwide in providing healthcare. And neither have single payer, but they do have universal coverage.

[valerief]

14. I didn't know there was a difference. I thought single-payer or

universal would be a not-for-profit health care plan managed by the government. That's what I want.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. "Universal" simply means everyone's covered...

by something-- public, private insurance, employer insurance, maybe even self-insured...

Single-payer, as used by most people, is a government plan eliminating private insurance. There's no theoretical reason why a government plan would be any worse than the mix of private plans already out there, and the argument is that it would have the economies of scale to save more money and deliver services more efficiently. There are valid arguments against this, and the economies of scale all too often degenerate into inefficiencies.

Problem is, in this country we have a sorry history of properly delivering government services. There were some sterling operations, like the TVA and NY Power Authority, but they eventually got ground down into mediocrity through various political pressures. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, Public Health Hospitals, Indian Health Service, SCHIP, and other government plans have all been used as political footballs and held hostage by various powers at times, with their clients ending up holding the bag. I would hate to see all healthcare on hold until Congress gets over some partisan hissyfit.

There are too many ideologues still around who do not believe that healthcare is a human right, and worse, actively try to derail every program we have. Until we have a consensus that healthcare is a basic right, we'll never have a chance of properly working national program. Even now in Canada and Britain they are going through debates over the costs and problems of state healthcare, and they had a consensus.

[valerief]

18. I trust a government plan like Medicare over a for-profit private plan. nt

[lib_wit_it]

20. Yes, this is what I meant to suggest in the poll.

[lib_wit_it]

21. Damn! I hate when I confuse what I want with what I think I want! I want health care in this

country to be a not-for-profit enterprise that is furiously protected from whatever can go wrong with such an enterprise. I want Americans' lives not to be ruined by un-affordable health care. I want the fact that we all need this protection to be taken as seriously as the idea that we need an overblown defense department to protect us from whatever, when deaths from illness surely are far more prevalent than those the military supposedly protects us from.

Maybe I need a new poll!

[ejpoeta]

44. the problem with this is....

1)people who HAVE insurance don't want to pay for those lazy people to get free health insurance. or all those illegal immigrants. why should i have to pay for everyone else. waahhhh!!
2)My insurance is JUST GREAT. and as long as i've got mine.... fuck you.
3) Socialism!!! Canada has long waiting lines and they all want OUR healthcare system!!!

Until someone who HAS insurance finds out just how crappy their insurance is, like when they get sick and their insurance won't cover it... then they will not want anything but what they've got. Then when they don't qualify for Medicaid because they already have insurance and make too much... then they will see that as a justification for all their complaints about medicaid. They will say they pay for it but they can't get it.

Whenever i think about this issue, I am reminded of a movie, which I know is fiction, but probably rings true throughout this country repeatedly.... John Q. I don't know if they would not put a person on the transplant list without a downpayment of some sort, but it scares the hell out of me that in this movie the hospital fully expects a family to take their ten year old son home to die for something that had he had adequate health insurance coverage or lots of money, they could fix for him.

[JVS]

57. We already have universal auto insurance. It's no great shakes.

[Critters2]

65. Actually, mine is quite affordable, and pretty good coverage

as far as I can tell. Of course, I haven't had a claim since being with this company, so I might be surprised, I suppose. And my renter's insurance is a rider on my auto policy and a very small extra charge. If health insurance worked this well, life would be good.

[LWolf]

13. I support

universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care.

Which is why I do not support the Obama health insurance plan.

[femmocrat]

31. Ditto. What you said.

:)

[BlooInBloo]

16. Sure. I'll also support what's possible in the country we actually live in....

with the Congress we actually have - namely a universal-something-or-other.

Not as good, but far from awful.

[Two Americas]

37. why?

Why would anyone ever advocate for what is "possible?"

We should always advocate for that which is not now possible, since that is the only way they can become possible. Advocating for the possible is no advocacy at all.

Nothing worth achieving - from Abolition to organized Labor to the right for women to vote to Civil Rights - was possible "in the country we actually lived in with the Congress we actually had" when people started advocating for those. Of course. And had people not started advocating for those before they were possible, they never would have become possible.

Advocating that which is possible is aiming at nothing and hitting it. Hardy what we could call a success.

Any social change requires public support, and that comes from people being inspired and motivated. You don't inspire and motivate people by throwing wet blankets on everything and lecturing them on what is possible. You are promoting the conditions that you claim to merely be observing. That is taking no position. When you take no position, it is easy to mock and ridicule those who do.


...

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Those who declare what is possible

and what is not are speaking only about their own limits, in imagination and in will. History is nothing if not a list of impossible things that became reality.
My own Grandfather traveled from his farm to the Chicago to see a driver named Barney Oldfield attempt to break either 50 or 60 mph...Pa did not think it was possible, and expected to see his own expectations proven. He told me this story as we drove down a SoCal freeway at 75 mph, after picking him up from a jet airline flight. Flight was alos on the impossible list for centuries. The impossible becomes not just possible, but downright common, and that happens in an instant. What is required is minds that are not locked in place and frozen in time.

[Two Americas]

50. politically

Politically, advocating for what is "possible" is to argue for the reactionary and conservative side on an issue, while claiming the opposite.

[LooseWilly]

79. I want my jet pack.

And a serving robot...

And a closet full of spare livers in a variety of colors that I can have surgically implanted to match my mood.

And I want it all for a dollar...


In the meantime... I personally am content to die rather than pay a single fucking dollar to the present health care insurance companies. I think of it as my own personal current-health-care-clusterfuck-strike.
If "they" take me to an ER, so be it... if I have the capacity to walk I'll leave.
It would be nice if some reforms to the way the HMOs shake down the rest of the country manage to get passed though. I mean, I really would like to have that closet full of spare livers in a variety of colors that I can have surgically implanted to match my mood...

[Two Americas]

17. once again

Once again we can see that the tail wags the dog.

While the majority of people here support single-payer, to read the threads one would think that the split was 50-50 at best.

On issue after issue, the conservative minority manages to dominate the discussion here and then claim that their views represent the majority, the mainstream view, the practical and realistic view, and that those who disagree with them are fringe, purists and far left weirdos who are not to be taken seriously.

This is also happening with the general public, where the majority of people support very left wing positions, but are mocked and ridiculed by the media and the political pundits and most importantly by the dominant voices throughout the Democratic party at all levels.


...

[scarletwoman]

23. Excellent point. It's rather fascinating to watch on DU, it's extremely disheartening to watch

it play out in the country at large.

Obviously, we "fringe" lefties need to make more noise.

sw

[biopowertoday]

27. There

was (is) a thread here on du this morning where some du members tried to intimidate single payer posters. It is horrible when we can not even have a rational discussion (where some members name call other members).


I thought du was above that but not so.

[Naturyl]

40. Yeah, it's bizarre.

Why doesn't the left speak up?

Every poll shows progressive positions (even radical ones) supported by landslide margins. And yet the threads themselves are often intense debates with progressive matched or outnumbered.

What is the cause of this? Surely it's not just simple cowardice. Right?

[Two Americas]

51. this really needs to be discussed

We get to this point so many times, then shrug our shoulders and go no farther.

That is the value of DU. We can see right here every day exactly how this works, here and everywhere on and off line.

We are up against a concerted, organized and very aggressive effort to disperse, intimidate, and confuse us. That is where the battle is, and it is a battle of words and ideas and should be fought as a battle of words and ideas. The goal of the opposition is to shut down thinking and discussion - always. When we shrug our shoulders and say "ain't it awful, what can we do, this is the way things are" we are surrendering, we are giving up.


...

[Naturyl]

66. Then let's discuss it.

Feel free to start a new thread. I'll be active in it.

Or, if you'd rather I start the thread, I'm willing.

This really does need to be brought to light.

[Two Americas]

84. great, yes

Glad you see the need. As you said in another post, you are often attacked and no one comes to your defense. I have noticed that when one leftist gets caught alone on a thread, they will be mercilessly attacked by several people, and it will go on and on of no one cones to their defense. But once one other strong leftist comes in to defend them, the pack of snapping dogs suddenly disappears. Those promoting conservative views here, and breaking up any attempts at expressing left wing politics, rarely stand and fight or defend their views.

We saw this with the January poverty project. Over the months if any one of us posted on homelessness or poverty, we were liable to being gang attacked - reliably and very quickly. But with the coordinated effort, writing several essays and then having everyone from the group supporting them, none of the people who had always viciously attacked anti-poverty advocates even showed up on any of the threads. We were then able to have some great discussions on the issue, and to get a much broader participation.

The discussion here - what is talked about and who participates - should not be dictated by bullying and intimidation, but it is. That is always for the purpose of suppressing left wing discussions, which are the discussions that the majority of the members are most interested in participating in.


...

[leftstreet]

24. But of course!

:thumbsup:

[woo me with science]

25. Yes.

More than ever before.

[Kansas Wyatt]

26. Yes, everyone pays into Medicare and that is all that is needed.

With all insurance companies being banned from any and all participation in any Medicare program.

[leftofthedial]

28. why would anyone who didn't hate America support anything else?

[varelse]

30. Yes, of course I do

just as I support, generally speaking, all other progressive ideals.

We can't afford not to do this.

[Two Americas]

32. wow, 95%

How is it that from the posts here one would think that half of the members, or more, oppose single payer?

How is it that a relatively small minority, both here and among the general public, is able to dominate and control the discussion?

Again and again with polls here, we see similar numbers on dozens of issues. Yet from reading the discussions one would never know that there was a 95% majority supporting the left wing positions, rather one would think it was more like 50% or less.

How is a small minority able to so effectively control the discussion? How are they able to portray the 95% as a minority?

...

[leftstreet]

35. ...

Did you see this one?

(hope the link works)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5297268

[Two Americas]

36. yes

I thought that was a good thread. I realized that many people talk about rights as though they meant privileges while I was reading that thread. Very valuable insight for me that will be put to good use from here on out.

It is illogical to say "I support those rights, BUT..." Either a person recognizes a right, or they do not. If they place qualifiers on their support, then it is not really support or it is not really a right that they support.


...

[Two Americas]

38. you know what is even more amazing?

We consistently see 70-90% support here for the left wing positions. Yet 50-70% of the posts consistently take the conservative or reactionary position, and those positions prevail here as often as not as the majority is shouted down, intimidated and discouraged from posting, driven away from the site or subjected to relentless personal attacks and smears.

But what is even more amazing is that this is not just happening here, but is happening with the general public as well. Pew Research found that 60-80% of the general public supports the same left wing positions, when the questions are asked straightforwardly without any hints as to which position goes with which partisan side. Yet in the media and the national political discussion, the conservative and reactionary points of view dominate and prevail.

I think that there are a couple of reasons for that, here and with the general public. First, those arguing the conservative and reactionary points of view have advantages - more access to resources, more free time, and better organization. Secondly, it is always easier to destroy things then to build things. You don't need to win in order to have conservative and reactionary positions prevail, you merely need to break up the formation of any alternative narrative or organizations. We see that right here, as there is an aggressive and relentless effort to break up any and all discussions before any consensus on left wing politics can form. They don't need to win - to make persuasive and compelling logical arguments - they just need to smash it all up, make a mess of things, confuse and intimidate people.


...

[leftstreet]

53. "easier to destroy things then to build things"

Excellent summary, but with one exception:

It's getting more and more difficult for the Ruling Class and its WaterCarriers to destroy the 'leftist' (horrors!) ideas building in the public mind.

Their usual methods for smashing up the conversations, discrediting the ideas, offering red herring distractions, aren't working as well as they once did.

Which makes me hopeful.

[Two Americas]

54. we are the ones being targeted

Those of us with the skills, inclinations, and time and resources (or willingness to commit what little time and resources we have) who could articulate the aspirations of the people are the ones being targeted, because the things we are saying - were we to band together and strengthen our narrative and find ways to get it to the public - would cause all hell to break loose if we escaped the straitjacket we are now in.

Leftist ideas are building in the public mind, yes, but they are vague and unfocused.

There is a noticeable decrease right now in the effectiveness of the effort to suppress the Left coming from the right wingers, but at the same time we see an increase in that effort coming from people in our own ranks, from our supposed allies.

I don't claim to have the answers. We need a vigorous exploration of this, and much more discussion and far more people working on it. I am encouraging people, trying to persuade them to explore this and talk about, not trying to persuade people that I have the answers.

...

[leftstreet]

58. The fault, dear Brutus...

...something about it being in 'ourselves,' eh?

:-)

You said it right here:

There is a noticeable decrease right now in the effectiveness of the effort to suppress the Left coming from the right wingers, but at the same time we see an increase in that effort coming from people in our own ranks, from our supposed allies.

"Whatever is blocking your next step, is your next step."

[Naturyl]

68. So true...

"There is a noticeable decrease right now in the effectiveness of the effort to suppress the Left coming from the right wingers, but at the same time we see an increase in that effort coming from people in our own ranks, from our supposed allies."

I've been considering leaving DU because lately it seems I no sooner state a progressive viewpoint than I get shouted down, insulted, ridiculed, mocked, and dismissed - without anyone coming to my defense. And this is happening to other progressives as well. Leftists are being hung out to dry and left to refute a flood of "centrist" derision by themselves. It is a phenomena which really does need to be examined and analyzed.

I think what is happening, at least in part, is that some Democrats are beginning to feel that a real threat to the status quo is fermenting in the public mind - and suddenly it's no longer all a game or a show. If the current opportunity for leftist values to take hold is allowed to reach fruition, people could be hit where it hurts - in the wallet. It would be foolhardy to underestimate the presence of conservative, moderate, or "centrist" Dems who really want anything but sweeping change.

Suddenly, leftism is no longer a punchline but a potential threat.

Or maybe that's just wishful thinking. I'm open to other analyses.

[Two Americas]

83. good insight I think

"Suddenly, leftism is no longer a punchline but a potential threat."

Yes, there is as you say a real threat to the status quo is fermenting in the public mind, and it is an opportunity for leftist values to take hold.

That is a great analysis. I think you are right.

[Naturyl]

42. You should have seen the beating I took advocating for that in another thread

I got sandbagged by attackers who insulted me every which way from Sunday, and not one DU'er came to my defense.

85% support for it on DU and advocates get left out to dry. Why?

[Quantess]

33. Anyone who has not seen SICKO needs to go rent it and watch it.

I just watched it for the first time 2 days ago. It's well worth seeing.

[Two Americas]

63. yes

Moore is a neighbor, and he did a premiere of the film in the little theater in the tiny town here with no fanfare and invited 200 of us locals to watch it with him for the first public showing. Mostly conservative people in the county. I was impressed are how moved people were by the film.

[Quantess]

85. My sister and her husband saw the film

She is quietly to the left, her husband is to the right. According to my mom they were both affected by the film, but after a few days mom tells me, my sister's husband reported back saying "it's all lies".

Well there is no replacement for seeing Europe for yourself, is there? I'm not close to bro-in-law, but I know he has never traveled outside the United States.

[Ron Green]

34. I want 2 important elements in our single-payer plan:

1. A reasonable expectation of death as a natural occurrence.
2. Real education about nutrition, exercise and preventive medicine.

[Balbus]

39. Hell to the no!

Who in their right mind would trust the govt with their healthcare??? Fucking insanity!

[Naturyl]

41. You'd rather trust the profit motive?

Wow.

[Delphinus]

43. Those over 65 for starters!

Just try and take it away from them.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Do you provide

private fire and police protection for your family, or do you trust the government with those minor details?

[Two Americas]

52. right!

And who would trust the government with educating our children, or inspecting our food for safety, or protecting organized Labor, or developing the Internet, or protecting child welfare, paving roads, managing and protecting natural resources, operating the weather service, managing disaster relief, protecting safe drinking water, doing research, delivering the mail, managing traffic safety, enforcing weights and measures, running libraries, maintaining courts of law, protecting minorities, and on and on.

I mean come on people, would you trust the government to run our national parks???? Such insanity.

No, the government can only be trusted to do three things, and with these three things it is to be given total unfettered power over us -

1. Protect and defend the needs and interests pf the wealthy and powerful few

2. Invade other countries and kill people

3. Harass and intimidate and imprison "undesirables" at home



...

[Zavulon]

56. I'm in this camp as well.

Money would be wasted, the administration of any program this huge would be inefficient, the cost would go up, benefits would be gradually reduced. The government is too inefficient to handle this responsibility; it can't even properly handle health care for soldiers, so there's no way I trust it to handle such a huge and important task for over 300 million people.

Once you go single-payer, there's no going back, and the government isn't up to the job. It can't even handle airport security. I'd rather go through reform after reform after reform after reform after reform after reform after reform after reform after before even THINKING of single-payer.

[Two Americas]

59. that is the libertarian position

That is fine, as people have every right to take libertarian positions. But let's not kid ourselves that it has anything to do with the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party or the political Left.

Most of the reason for why people think that the "government isn't up to the job" is because Republicans have been running the government, and their goal was always to destroy it.

Call me old-fashioned, but I just don't think "Atlas Shrugged" should be the bible for the Democratic party.



...

[Zavulon]

60. I'm hoping that

you don't believe every member here has to march in lockstep with every Democratic stance. If so, you should know that I'm also pro-gun.

I'm a registered Democrat because I am horrified by Republican stances on things such as torture, abortion, gay rights, religion and so on. This does not mean I am required to sign off on the government getting the keys to the entire health care industry.

Even if you could give me a guarantee that Republicans would never be in power again, I'd still bet that the government isn't up to the job. The government couldn't handle health care for the military during Clinton's administration, either, and that was after some pretty big force cuts.

Once the Repugs get power back, and they will, I don't want to be completely dependent on the government for my health care, and I can't believe you'd want to, either.

By the way, those repeated reforms I suggested are not the product of a libertarian position - the libertarian position would be that the government shouldn't be involved in any way at all.

I never read "Atlas Shrugged." Now call ME old-fashioned, but I don't believe in entrusting crucial, life-and-death tasks to massive, wasteful inefficient bureaucratic behemoths run by people on both sides of the aisle who are far more interested in their own careers than they are in the wishes and well-being of their constituents.

[Two Americas]

61. thanks

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I appreciate that very much.

No, you do not need to be in lockstep with anything. However, I do think that we need clarity about what it means to be on the Left.

From a left wing point of view, the solution to "massive, wasteful inefficient bureaucratic behemoths run by people on both sides of the aisle who are far more interested in their own careers than they are in the wishes and well-being of their constituents" is democracy, not the elimination of government involvement.

From a left wing point of view, we are every bit as likely, more likely to suffer at the hands of a "massive, wasteful inefficient bureaucratic behemoths run by people who are far more interested in their own careers than they are in the wishes and well-being of the people" when corporations run our lives, which is the case now and which is the inevitable alternative to government intervention.

From a left wing point of view, the Republicans will be controlling things one way or another, through government or through corporations, until and unless we fight back. Eliminating government makes it easier, not more difficult, for then to control our lives.

From a left wing point of view, eliminating government does not mean that no one controls us, it means that rather than having some say, we will have no say and the wealthy and powerful will rule us directly and not have to bother with bribing the government officials or controlling the political parties. It would be more efficient and effective for them, and much worse for us.

From a left wing point of view, "torture, abortion, gay rights, religion" are not political issues, but are merely things that the right wingers use to get people to support and go along with their program to protect and advance the interests and desires of the wealthy and powerful few.

From a left wing point of view, torture and preemptive war and persecution and bigotry and the shredding of the Bill of Rights and the growth of the police state are merely tools for the right wingers to use in order to advance the interests and desires of the wealthy and powerful few, and cannot be separated from that struggle. Opposition to those abominations by the right wing is not a political stance, but rather a moral stance. There is nothing "conservative" or "liberal" about opposition to torture. (There is, by the way, nothing conservative or liberal about taking one side or the other in the gun control controversy either, and I agree with you on that issue and strongly defend the Second Amendment.)

I am not promoting one view over another here, but merely calling for clarity.

I am glad you are with us in opposition to many of the horrific things that the right wing is doing. We may differ in this - what we see as the cause of those things, and what we see as the solution. Those differences are the differences between the two political approaches. I don't demand that you embrace the left wing approach, nor do I think it makes you a bad person if you do not.

But we do desperately need clarity on this.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response, your honesty, and your willingness to discuss this calmly and rationally. We need a lot more of that.


...

[Zavulon]

64. i respect and appreciate your response as well, and thank you for it, but

the question here is not what qualifies us as respectable left-wingers, it's whether we support single-payer. I simply don't trust the government to handle it, and despite the hundreds of posts I've seen on DU supporting the idea, my opinion has not been swayed.

My stance is simple: I have to be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT sure that the government is up to the task before I'd approve of the idea (95% would not be enough), and as it stands I'm not even 50% sure. The problem is this: whether you agree with me or not on my objections, we both know that once we go single-payer, it won't be on a trial basis - it will be permanent.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, scares me more than needing some medical procedure when the Republicans are in charge (and as much as I wish against it, they will be again) and they give more of a shit about funding their twisted objectives than funding medical care.

I do appreciate your response, I really do, but most of your post was merely singing to the choir and not one iota of it changed my mind. Your second bullet which started with "From a left wing point of view" was the best, but at the very least corporations can be regulated and reigned in to some degree, punished if they mess up and so on. The federal government, once it's completely in charge of health care, can't. If Republicans are in charge and arbitrarily decide not to fund this treatment or that, then we'd be screwed beyond comprehension.

Give me an absolute guarantee that Democrats will control the government until the end of the lives of me and my loved ones, and I'll consider single-payer. Absent that guarantee, which not you or anyone else on DU can make, it's no sale on my end.

Again, though, sincere thanks for your response.

- Zavulon

[rebecca_herman]

69. I have a similar view

I'd be fine with single payer in a perfect world. We do not live in a perfect world. And because of that I'd trust more a system like that in some of the European countries, where there is a government plan but you do have the option to purchase private insurance if you think it will serve your particular needs better or want the extra security.

For example I will likely have to be on birth control pills the rest of my life for a medical condition, even when I am not sexually active. Last thing I need is some fundie Republican government deciding it's abortion like some of them insist and it's not going to be paid for. I can also get an abortion paid for by my insurance should I ever need one, another thing that's likely to get the axe if a Republican government is in power.

Do I think insurance companies are perfect? No. But I currently trust them more than a government that is going to have constant changes of power. I trust someone more that's out to make money than someone who is out to control people's bodies in the name of their "religion."

Many European countries that have been given high ratings for their quality of health care offer citizens the right to obtain private health insurance. For example I believe Italy is ranked 2nd in the world for health care, and their citizens can choose private insurance and private hospitals if they wish.

[mvd]

72. Insurance companies will deny coverage and we have no recourse

The government is ultimately accountable to us. Sorry, I see single payer as the only real solution. With private insurance being supplementary at most.

[rebecca_herman]

73. its also "accountable" to the citizens who don't agree with us

people who are against abortion, against birth control, sterilization, other services, have the right to vote too, how else do you think we've ended up with so many Republican governments in power over the years?

I've gotten decent care from my private insurance, I would never trust a Republican government to provide that level of care, and I'm very young, there is likely going to be another Republican government in power in my lifetime, unfortunately.

I know if I was looking at foreign countries and picking somewhere to live based solely on healthcare, it would likely be a European country, not somewhere like Canada. Because everyone is guaranteed basic care, but people aren't denied the right to seek other coverage if they feel they need it.

[mvd]

74. No to insurance companies, period. I will NOT have them deciding who gets needed health care

That has been a proven failure for too many. Again, single payer is the way to go. No system is absolutely perfect; I will take my chances with the government. When we enact single payer, we should set safeguards to help firm up the coverage further.

[rebecca_herman]

75. I don't get it

So many people here are so vehemently against the existence of private health insurance, even when it is not the only option, yet admire European countries when many offer the option of private hospitals and private insurance.

I don't get it?

Why do you object so much to people being able to spend their own money to get the care they feel they need if the ever-changing whims of the government decide not to cover something because they are against it for *moral* reasons?

My shipments from Amazon UK have included ads for private health insurance even among the other junk brochures! Yet their NHS still stands and I don't see people rioting in the streets to get rid of the "Evil" private insurance.

[mvd]

76. Do you mean supplemental insurance that covers non-necessary health care?

If so, I could support that, to a very limited degree. Insurance companies should be as far away from important decisions as possible.

[rebecca_herman]

77. From what I've heard from people living in Europe

these plans generally cover some "extra" things, such as private rooms, infertility treatments, expensive prescription drugs or treatments the particular government has decided are not worth the cost-benefit, or other things, but they might also cover services the national plan covers, if the patient wants it done in another country, or if the patient along with their doctor feels the wait time is unacceptable and would damage their health, or if it is unavailable in a public hospital at a time or date that is possible for the patient to have it done without disrupting their job/life. It depends on the country, and on the particular plan you are purchasing. In some countries you might get the extra coverage as a job benefit, in other places individuals purchase it on their own so there is competition to attract customers (hence the ads I've seen from time to time when shopping online from other countries).

I'm sure everyone's life experiences cause them to trust either businesses or the government more. I don't blame someone who doesn't trust insurance companies and would rather have a government plan for themself. But if that government plan happens along with a ban on insurance companies which I might have been able to turn to for private coverage if something I felt I needed for my health and quality of life isn't covered by the government - well, then I will blame people for telling me what to do with my money.

[mvd]

78. I'd want our government covering some of that

If we end the wars, raise taxes on the rich, and cut out corporate tax loopholes, we'd have a lot to spend - and as a big country, we can do it.

[rebecca_herman]

80. problem is

people who aren't democrats or liberals have the right to vote too
and unfortunately there are plenty of religious fundies in this country
if enough of them vote and scream "we don't want our tax money paying for abortion", or sterilization, or whatever, what happens then?
It's already happened with medicaid. good luck getting an abortion or tubal if you live in a fundie state, because federal doesn't pay for it, and only liberal states pick up the tab

[mvd]

81. Still don't see it as a big problem

I think it can and should be covered by government. I've heard your argument already, and am not swayed when we have the chance now to craft single payer the way we want it and outsmart the Repukes/fundies. Limit states' rights on it. Fundies are becoming less of an influence now anyway.

on edit: the proposed bill won't specifically ban all private insurance. If there's an emergency, and if we're smart I don't think there will be, then they can step in and pay for abortions.

[mvd]

82. Got to go to bed now

See my edit if you have more concerns. We will probably have to transition to single payer, especially in this economy. So we have time to hammer out the details.

[Two Americas]

90. misleading and deceptive

I don't think anyone is talking about outlawing insurance companies or forbidding people from seeking out their own private health care. No matter what system we have, there will no doubt be some who will do that.

For example - we have universal public education, but that does not stop people from sending their children to private schools. We have public libraries bit that does not stop wealthy people from building their own private library should they wish to do so. We have public parks, but rich people can build their own private park if they like. we have public transportation in many of our cities. This does not mean that you cannot drive your private automobile.


...

[Two Americas]

89. that is clear

"I trust insurance companies more than government."

That is the foundation of the political right wing over the last 30 years or so, and the basis of Reaganomics and the right wing takeover of our government and our country.


...

[Two Americas]

88. not "respectable"

I am not asking people to be "respectable left-wingers" as though this were a matter of doctrinal purity or political correctness. I would be ecstatic were people here to consistently and strongly take any sort of position at all that was even vaguely left wing, and assessed issues from that point of view.

You are saying that Republicans may be in power again some day, so therefore we should not advocate any progressive reform because once they are in power they will corrupt it and turn it against us.

If we need "an absolute guarantee that Democrats will control the government until the end of the lives of me and my loved ones" before we advocate any progressive reform, we are surrendering before the battle even begins. No progressive advocacy would ever pass your test here.

The you say that you have to be 100% sure that the government is up to the task before you will support progressive reform. Again, this is a standard that no advocacy for progressive reform could ever meet.

I don't expect to change your mind - some will never take left wing positions - and I am not trying to persuade you or "sell" you on anything, rather I am clarifying the issues for the benefit of the readers of this thread.


...

[Zavulon]

92. "some will never take left wing positions"

I have plenty of left-wing positions. I simply don't agree with you on this one. If not proceeding full speed ahead on an idea which hits the point of no return the second it's enacted because I'm wary that it might come back to bite us isn't what you call progressive reform, so be it - on this issue.

I'm all for reform on health care, just not this brand of reform. Thanks for not going the extra mile and calling me a Freeper, though.

[Lyric]

67. You aren't arguing against single-payer. You DO know that, right?

Your argument is against government-administered healthcare. That is NOT what single-payer is--not even close.

Single-payer is simply this: the government taxes us to collect money to go into a healthcare fund, kinda like Social Security, except THIS one cannot be raided by a greedy Congress. When we go to our doctor, or to a hospital, or to fill a prescription, we hand over our cards and the government is billed. The government pays the bills. The end.

Nothing changes except the payment system. Our current network of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, techs, hospitals, clinics...ALL of that stays the same. The only things that we LOSE are the HMOs that fuck us over for the sake of their own bottom lines.

Veteran healthcare is a nightmare BECAUSE the government is trying to run the entire show via vet hospitals. If veterans could just see their OWN doctors and have the government billed for the service, their healthcare would be perfect. THAT is what single-payer IS.

If you're going to be paranoid, at least be paranoid about the right thing.

[rebecca_herman]

70. they can still refuse to pay for certain things

There are things private insurance often covers but Medicaid does not often for political reasons. Just look at abortion, you often cannot get an elective abortion on Medicaid - federal funds won't pay, and extra state funds only pay in certain liberal areas. I know that every private insurance plan I have been on in my life has covered an elective abortion.

[Lyric]

86. That's a matter for policy adjustment, not tossing the idea completely.

Very few of *us* want our tax dollars going toward "abstinence-only" sex education, for example. Even still, none of us are advocating the overthrow of government-subsidized sex education, either. We just want it to be done *properly*, and we push for legislation to ensure that it IS done properly.

The same would be true for single-payer. Save for banning elective cosmetic procedures, the government plays NO role in our private medical decisions. We shouldn't throw out the idea of single-payer healthcare just because a few loudmouthed hypocrites are going to complain about the government funding abortion with their tax dollars. None of those people would care if WE complained that we didn't want the government funding the military with OUR tax dollars. They are zealots, and they must be taught that their personal "morality" has nothing to do with government spending. Nobody gets to pick and choose how the government spends their tax dollars, after all, and that's how it's always been. Tradition is on OUR side, not theirs.

[Zavulon]

91. I don't believe for a moment

that this is the way it will go down. You honestly believe government will do nothing but pay the bill, and keep its hands out otherwise? If so, I wish I shared your optimism.

[mudesi]

94. Right Wing Talking Point After Right Wing Talking Point....

Amazing.

It works in Canada. It works in France. It works in Britain.

Jesus.

[Zavulon]

98. Blah, blah, blah.

My family had to leave Canada because the system didn't work for my father. My best friend is leaving British Columbia because his kid is autistic and BC arbitrarily decided to stop paying for what he needed.

I know nothing about France's system, but I have heard enough horror stories about Britain simply deciding not to pay for certain operations because they're not cost-efficient that I'm not willing to take your "it works" for granted, even despite your well-worded "amazing" and "Jesus."

One other thing: a right-wing talking point is "we have the best system in the world, it doesn't need changing." I advocate reform, I just don't want to give government control over it all.

If the French and British systems cover 100% of proctology expenses, you might want to investigate eligibility into those programs if you ever decide to take me up on what you should be able to guess is my suggestion as to what you can do with your snide and condescending bullshit.

[Vinca]

45. Apparently 10 people are either related to Bill Gates or

think their "good" insurance will cover them when they get a devastating illness that takes them over their $2 million lifetime cap.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Millions of people

work for and profit by the Insurance con game. Of course they do not want change, they have a boat to pay for!

[Thothmes]

96. Or maybe they are retirees from the Armed Services of the United States.

[Odin2005]

55. 100% yes.

[Two Americas]

62. sad

Sad that we cannot get more discussion going. People throw out inflammatory reactionary talking points, and then when those aren't working they just walk away from the discussion. Are people unable to think in anything other than talking points?

[mvd]

71. Yes!

I will never trust for-profit insurance companies more than the government. The government is accountable to us; we will rein it in if it starts being power hungry and makes choices based on "family values." Now some supplementary private insurance is ok with me, but necessary health care should be a right.

[ProfessorGAC]

87. It Would Be Inherently More Efficient

Despite the bleating of the "you gotta have competition" crowd, for a commodity like health care, there are already too many layers of administration. So, having extra companies all with those same layers fo admin is, by definition, less efficient.

Having all the activities run through one channel will reduce the cost by reducing the total amount of administrative overhead.
GAC

[robertpaulsen]

95. K & R! And Hell Yeah!

:kick:

[Thothmes]

97. I fully support the single payer health care plan.

Having said that, I think that it is going to cost me 6-8 % of my income to pay for the program. The mantra of tax the wealthy and close the loop holes will provide considerable funds for the program. But I am of the opinion that it will not suffice to provide that extensive of a program for the entire American population. I think that medicare type taxes ,over and above what we now pay, will have to be implimented to cover the cost of the program. I think that it is worth the taxes that will have to be paid to have the medical coverage.