Does anyone think our coming healthcare "reform" might become WORSE than anything the GOP could do?

[Faryn Balyncd]

If the GOP could design a malignant pseudo-"reform" of healthcare, what might be its elements?



Would a Republican/lobbyist-written, perhaps:


- - Mandate that Americans purchase health coverage from the insurance industry, a la Romney's Massachusetts plan?

- - Eliminate public options, while excluding, even from discussion, advocates of a Single Payer Medicare-for-All styled system preferred by 62% of Americans?

- - Take away the tax free status of health insurance benefits?

- - Be formulated in backrooms by industry lobbyists, a la Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force?

- - Create a government mandated monopoly for the insurance industry, the results of which would make the massive inflation in drug prices which followed the Medicare Prescription Drug fiasco appeal trivial?

- - Peddle the bill to the public by holding out promises, perhaps, of federal vouchers, even though such a voucherized system would allow a future right wing Congress or administration to easily freeze the funding of vouchers and leave individual citizens with the burden of paying for the unfunded insurance mandate. (with much less political difficulty than they could, for example, renege on paying the bills submitted by providers under traditional Medicare, or any other public system)?

- - Fail to confront the fundamental inflationary forces of (a.) uncontrolled "administrative" costs, including executive compensation in the insurance industry, (b) inefficient health resource allocation, (c) unnecessary defensive medicine?

- - Kill, once and for all, the chance of EVER enacting an affordable, comprehensive Single Payer healthcare system, and finally achieving what the reactionary opponents of Medicare were unable to stop when Medicare was passed in 1965?






Could even the most malignant Republican administration have formulated and PASSED a "reform" with the above elements?


Is it conceivable that our Democratic leaders will advance, and possibly pass, in the name of "reform", a bill which might accomplish much of this agenda?


Is it significant that our administration has hired a well-connected "White House adviser" who explicitly advocates NOT ONLY the elimination of a public option (such as the right for younger Americans to opt in to Medicare), but actually phasing in a PRIVATIZATION of Medicare?







Are those of us who are becoming disillusioned simply lacking sufficient faith?






:kick:





"If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform. If they’re not, we will be back fighting about it for another 20 years before somebody tries again."

-Howard Dean








:kick:

[Psychic Consortium]

1. No. It will be good.

Wait and see.

[Greyhound]

66. That's it? That's all you have, wait and see?

What a brilliant and compelling argument...:eyes:

[Psychic Consortium]

67. It will happen because Obama has promised it to the American people.

And he will make good on this promise.

[Faryn Balyncd]

68. Are you saying that if Congress passes a Baucus/lobbyist /No-public-option bill, Obama will veto it?

Are you not concerned that the flow in committee has been contrary to the program -- with a public option -- that Obama promised?

Obama did not promise a Single Payer system, but also he did not promise to exclude advocates of Single Payer from the process.

And by excluding Single Payer advocates, the public option he DID PROMISE is being marginalized, and sabotaged.



It now appears the bill will be written by industry lobbyists and their collaborators, and that the bill that emerges will be directly contrary to what Obama ran on.

Has Obama, or the White House, done anything to advance a public option within the ranks of Congressional Democrats?

Has it helped that Obama has hired a "white House asviser", the brother of his chief of staff, who advocates a mandatory insurance scheme which not only does away with Obama's promised public option, but actually advocate the PRIVATIZATION of Medicare, so that future retirees would be forced to continue purchase of their insurance? And that such a plan would be peddled to Americans with a promise of federal vouchers, but that futures vouchers could be easily frozen or reduced, in the face of rising insurance rates, by a Republican Congress that would have had great political difficulty reneging on payments to traditional Medicare?



So are you saying he will veto such a bill?

Or are you saying Democrats and Americans should be happy with a corporatist bailout we cannot afford, one that will leave individuals mandated to purchase insurance from the industry without the public option Obama campaigned on?

[Psychic Consortium]

75. Veto or no veto there will be health care for all Americans....

It may not happen right away, or may take a circuitous route. But Obama will keep his promise.

[Faryn Balyncd]

77. Your recurrent answer seems to imply that it makes no difference if the middle class gets SCREWED...

.......or if the insurance CEO's get to continue their racket, only now with a government mandated monopoly.


Maybe I'm reading too much in to what you say, but it would appear that you think the only issue of importance is that "Americans will have health care" (Hell, GWB made that claim, in fact he said "Americans have the best health care in the world"), and that anybody who cares about the details should just take that on faith band shut up.

Well, many of us happen to believe there is more at stake than whether or not there is a "universal health care plan". Important things like whether the (vanishing) middle class gets screwed again (as usual). Or whether the fat cats not only continue their racket, but whether our government enables them with a mandate.

Sometimes peddlers of bullshit don't want to get too much into details.

But the reality is, details DO matter........we simply don't have the resources to accomplish universal health care UNLESS we take out the fat. And we certainly can't afford another trillion dollar corporate welfare boondoggle, just because that route offers the political course of least resistance in Congress. But the reality is, we simply can't afford health care unless we have the political will to take on and defeat the insurance companies, who are taking an astronomical percentage of our health care dollars in "administrative" expenses, Which their philosophers claim they earn as resource allocators (a assignment they have mangled.)

What Big Insurance wants (and is putting on the full court press to get) is mandatory purchase of insurance with NO PUBLIC OPTION, and, if Zeke Emanuel were to get his way, the PRIVATIZATION of Medicare. Peddling this to the American people would require that they be convinced Uncle Sam will pay for everything with vouchers.

This is the kind of crap that politicians can't resist, because it allows them to falsely claim a win-win "reform".

But the reality is that this would result in continued uncontrolled rises in health care costs, and in insurance rates, that nobody, including Uncle Sam, can pay for. And a future right wing Congress could easily freeze the funding of vouchers (much more easily politically than they could renege on the payments for traditional Medicare, or for any other public program).

So saying that "Americans will get health care one way or another" just won't cut it.

The devil is in the details.

If we do not have the political will to take on and defeat Big Insurance, we will not only fail to obtain affordable universal health care, but we will likely create problems worse that the Wall Street meltdown.

[Psychic Consortium]

80. The middle class will not be screwed.

And the corrupt and greedy insurance companies will have a comeuppance. Their day is over.

If the billions of dollars they steal from the system
are given back to the people, there is more than enough money
for health care for all.

Americans have been the victims of a corrupt and greedy
government. That is all going to change. We have a president who works for us.

But it takes time and finesse to right the wrong. The crooks
are clever and dangerous and must be handled just right.

[TBF]

89. Maybe it's time for us to define the word "crooks". n/t

[blindpig]

93. So essentially all you got is 'faith'.

That and a dollar will get you a bad coffee at the gas station.

[debbierlus]

76. Republicans & Democrats...Seems to be they have morphed into one thing

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

70. The Fact that Baucus Refused to hear Single Payer, and arrested activists

shows you that insurance cos pull way to many strings now.

Insurance is a rip off - why should we pay more to private companies, just
so they can donate to asshats like Baucus?

What do we get in return?

[Psychic Consortium]

81. The corrupt and greedy ins companies will not win the day.

Their time is over.

[Lasher]

85. If you are feeling uncertain or nervous right now, don't suppress it.

Turn to your family for the comfort you need.

[TBF]

90. Sorry but you're a little late. They've already won because they're the

only ones in the room. Your one-liners nonwithstanding, the average people in this country are still going to be under the thumb of insurance companies. The change? It will now be mandatory that we pay for them to abuse us.

[Psychic Consortium]

91. Obama is in the room with them, and he represents the people.

He has not forgotten what they did to his dying mother.

[TBF]

95. He does? Then why is he not talking about single-payer initiatives?

Why the concern for the profit of insurance companies? I wish you were right, but sadly all evidence points to the contrary. If Obama, and anyone in Washington for that matter, cared about average Americans, we wouldn't have doctors getting arrested for speaking their piece on single payer.

[Psychic Consortium]

96. Right now Obama is giving the ins co's enough rope to hang themselves.

That is Obama's MO. First he gives everyone the chance to do the right thing. Second he gives them enough rope to hang themselves. They self destruct.

The greedy and corrupt are going down.

[TBF]

97. That doesn't even make sense.

Insurance companies are for-profit and designed to make money. How in the world would you define "give everyone the chance to do the right thing"? Should they give services/drugs away and bankrupt their companies to the detriment of the shareholders? Quite frankly I don't see them doing that.

What is going on is that single payer is being given the shaft, and the smoke and mirror comments about Obama working clandestinely to trick people into doing the "right thing" is just that - magical thinking.

[Psychic Consortium]

98. Ins company execs do not need to become billionaires denying care to sick people.

It is unconscionable. There is some middle ground
between making a reasonable profit and scamming
people out of their rightful benefits.

PC is not engaging in magical thinking, but the reality of what will happen.

Quite some time ago PC announced that Obama would win the presidency with a mandate and that was also seen as magical thinking.

[TBF]

100. What is "reasonable"? How do you sell that on the Street?

Capitalism is not designed to find "middle ground between making a reasonable profit and scamming people". With something as important as health care we should not be depending upon the private sector as far as I'm concerned. If not a system like Canada's, why not at least open up Medicare for whomever wants it? What is so difficult about doing that? Paying for it? Cut the military budget.

[Psychic Consortium]

101. PC agrees with you 100%. nt

[sendero]

99. More wishful thinking..

... from the delusional crowd.

[truedelphi]

84. We can fantasize about what it must be like to be

A top HMO CEO.

When Frima Harrup had a column last year about the inequities of the health care business, she mentioned this one hospital in Rhode Island that was trying to get its HMO provider to increase payments to the hospital by 10%. And the HMO kept refusing.

Meanwhile the CEO of that compnay received a salary equivalent to all 3300 employees at that hospital.

One CEO's salary = 3300 mere workers' salaries!!

[Uzybone]

2. Nonsense

No, the GOP plan will be worse than the Democrats plan. Are you a democrat?

[Faryn Balyncd]

4. Are you saying that the bill that will emerge WILL have a public option?

(By the way, has the GOP shown any indication that they are even planning on putting forth a bill of their own?)

[Imperialism Inc.]

58. Why would they need to is the real question. What is being cooked up now

is totally acceptable to Republicans who take money from the insurance lobby since it is being written by that lobby in the first place.

[Lasher]

88. I believe there will be a public option but it will be a red herring

It will be set up just like the private option but with government employees taking the places of private ones. Or they might even outsource that since it seems so important to make privatization freaks happy. And it will surely be designed to fail, so insurance companies don't have to worry about getting their asses kicked on a level playing field such as with Part C/Medicare Advantage. One way to ensure that is to require the public program to take all those who private companes turn away due to pre-existing conditions.

[Better Believe It]

62. The GOP Plan could become the Democrats plan.

Are you a democrat or an insurance company representative?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

74. The current plan that Baucus and Obama are pushing is like money laundering

We pay taxes.
Congress/Obama gives those taxes to insuranc cos.
Insuranc cos deny access or treatment/ration it
Insurance co's donate 1/100 of their profits back to congress/Obama or whoever is Pres.

Like money laundering. Our money, all washed out.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Everything we know about the plan so far sucks. Baucus crossed the aisle to pass bush's drug bill,

which outlawed importation from Canada and Mexico, outlawed the government from negotiating on drug prices, and used taxpayer money to subsidies private drug companies. It raised the cost of drugs.

Why worry about faith? We have real history to guide us.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. The Medicare drug "benefit" is the single biggest piece of evidence

that our government does not work on our behalf or even it's own behalf. The VA negotiates with drug companies to obtain the lowest price. Other countries negotiate with AMERICAN companies to obtain the lowest price. But Medicare was specifically forbidden to have that ability. The bill was written as a direct wealth transfer from Americans to drug companies. No lawmaker can possibly justify what was done.

The Democrats now have the majority in both houses - why do they not amend this monstrosity to allow negotiation of prices?

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Follow the money. 1.8 million to Baucas

[Jakes Progress]

16. Anyone who had any hand in that "benefit"

program should be in jail. It would make me feel better if I could think that the white house knows who wrote that pharma/insurance wet kiss and has ordered that they be banned from working on this legislation.

Anyone who has had to deal with Medicare drug plan, either for themselves or a parent, knows just how bad government can screw you and still ball it a benefit. That it has not been amended since we have a majority and a president is an indication of just how little our congressmen think of us.

It does not bode well for any health legislation.

So, yes. It is possible for them to make it worse than it is now.

[dysfunctional press]

41. i refuse to sign up for that sham of a prescription-drug 'benefit'...

i almost did, due to the cost of cymbalta- but ultimately i decided that cymbalta wasn't worth it.

i'm hoping for something better to come along, prescription drug-plan wise for medicare- or at ;east i WAS hoping...i'm not too hopeful anymore. and it sucks.

[Lugnut]

42. You beat me to it.

Medicare Part D is the biggest bad joke ever foisted upon Social Security recipients.

[jgraz]

46. Sadly, it's not even in the top 10

[debbierlus]

60. Because they represent the drug companies and not the people

Just look at the action...

Not the politician...

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

71. Hell, Walmart can negotiate with Drug Cos, but US Govt can't/wont for medicare meds

isn't that interesting?

[book_worm]

5. I believe that any bill that is passed will allow Americans who like there health insurance to keep

it. This will not be any Canadian single payer plan. If we can get a plan that covers all people currently without insurance and allows people who lose there insurance and provides additional insurance to those who are under insured then I think we will have taken a big step forward, but it will not be the plan which, I think, most DUers want a single payer health plan and Obama never campaigned for such a plan.

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. But will it also mandate purchase of a plan from an insurance company & eliminate public options?

(the public option, by the way, that Obama DID campaign on - - - just as he campaigned on the promise that those who liked their insurance could keep it).




"If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform. If they’re not, we will be back fighting about it for another 20 years before somebody tries again."

-Howard Dean

[leftstreet]

11. Why would an employer continue to offer benefits to those who 'like it?'

Most people who 'like' their insurance coverage aren't paying for it, or are paying a very small amount.

Why would an employer continue to offer such a benefit if the employee can buy 'affordable' insurance?

:shrug:

[robinlynne]

23. excuse me. It costs a fortune. It is not a very small amount. It is my number

2 expense every month: after rent, before food.

[leftstreet]

43. No, I meant employer-paid medical coverage

Not your situation

[paulsby]

44. contracts, among other reasons

i am an employee of a a public law enforcement agency.

we have an EXCELLENT health plan, and one that is paid entirely by our employer.

i am talking a 12k+ benefit, tax free.

i get massages, chiro, cheap meds, the whole nine yards. it rocks.

and my union contract requires the dept.to pay the full cost of our medical plan. that's what we negotiated.

so, at least my employer would HAVE to continue to offer such a benefit, for the length of our contract (several years to go)

[Bluenorthwest]

51. That is Union doing that for you

Collective bargining makes for good benefits!

[readmoreoften]

63. Well, only a small percentage of Americans have union protection.

Consider yourself lucky. I believe it was 12.5% in 2005. Even lower now.

[paulsby]

72. i most definitely do

consider myself lucky in this regard.

one of the (many) reasons i chose my career is the job security and protections that comes with union membership

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Obama also never campaigned on shutting 60% of Americans out of the debate.

I recall specifically his plan had no mandate to purchase.

See, when it's single payer, he didn't campaign on it.

When it's mandate to purchase and shut out of the debate, it's crickets....

You want it both ways.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

73. Obama and Congress are not proposing what you just described

Obama and Congress are proposing a real bonanza of a bailout for Insurance Cos
that will ensure the vicious cycle of barriers to health care, high expenses, poor health,
rich CEOs/middlemen and more donations from Ins cos to Max Baucus on OUR DIME!

[LWolf]

8. Yes. It could be worse than what we currently deal with. nt

[Hangingon]

53. I agree. There is a real danger it could be worse.

[ThomCat]

9. All of the signs so far say that we're getting screwed again.

Most of the political forces are lining up to feed us to the insurance companies. Unfortunately, Obama seems to be lining up with the insurance companies too, Talking about helping us but setting things in motion to do less than what people expect.

The white house web site talks about slowing the rate of cost increase, not about lowering the cost of health care. So the cost of health care will still go up under their plans, just not quite as fast as it does now. How does that help people who already can't afford health care?

Obama is excluding single payer from even being discussed or considered, and so is the rest of our party leadership.

Universal Insurance is being discussed instead of Universal Health Care. But Universal Insurance means that everyone must Pay for insurance. There is no guarantee that the copays or deductibles are low enough to make the insurance useful. Most people may end up with insurance they pay for but then can't afford to use. There is no guarantee that the insurance will provide adequate or complete coverage. People will still have to worry about insurance companies denying and delaying claims, and not covering certain procedures or medications. The only ones who are sure to benefit from universal insurance are the insurance companies.

Even the so called "public option" that is being hinted at is sounding like a gift to insurance companies, because the word is that the the government would outsource this public option to insurance companies to run. Even if you choose this public option you would still be dealing with a private insurance company running and profiting from the public plan.

We all need to shout loudly about what we want and need, or it's guaranteed that we're going to get screwed. The insurance companies are already working hard to get what they want, and politicians are listening.

[salguine]

10. This is the ONLY way we well EVER get a health care system:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/11/15/racord_rally_wideweb__470x311,0.jpg

[madrchsod]

14. that is the only way....

but sadly it will never happen....

[angstlessk]

15. hell...it can happen and we still will not get comprhensive health care..that is a pic of

the iraq war demonstrations...they did NOTHING...NO THING...NO.....THING...

[Jakes Progress]

17. But I hear we are going to elect someone to end that war.

[angstlessk]

26. yes, I hear Nixon has a secret way to end the war..oh wait...

was that McSame? I sometimes forget!!! :crazy:

[scentopine]

24. Let's do it on Wall Street. We have to demand our share!

Obama pays homage to all the brave people who protested and sacrificed for what is right in ways that our government now considers terrorism. Wonder what he would do if 1 million people took to the streets and it wasn't because we were celebrating him but protesting the as of yet unfulfilled mandate with which he was entrusted .

[blindpig]

61. Yes, but not just a one day protestapalooza.

It's going to take a general strike that paralyzes a significant portion of the country and it must go on until they come to the table on the people's terms.

It ain't gonna happen tomorrow or next week, but that's what it's gonna take. The sooner the activists accept this the sooner we can get on with things.

[readmoreoften]

64. Yes. People need to get it out of their heads that a one day protest can thwart economic power.

It is a viable method for showing solidarity against bigotry (MLK, gay rights, immigrant rights) but it takes economic power to combat economic power. The only economic power we have is the strike. Not impossible and confusing boycotts but the strike--and international solidarity helps it along.

[bvar22]

18. After looking at Schumer's "Public Option",

I have lost all faith that our "Centrist" Democrats are going to pass something that will benefit Working Americans & the Poor.

What we are going to have rammed up our ass will be something that channels $BILLIONS into the already bloated pockets of the For Profit Health Care Industry....
Then, adding Insult to Injury, the "Centrist" Democrats will declare VICTORY, and any REAL Health Care Reform will be impossible for another generation.

HR 676 (MediCare for ALL) has 93 Co-Sponsors in The House, but you would NEVER know this if all you listen to are the "Centrist" Democrats and their co-conspirator, the MSM.

THIS is my line in the sand (Howard Dean). If the "Health Care Reform" does NOT include a viable well funded Public Option, I'll be looking for a new Party....one that represents Working Americans.

AS bad as the signs look for REAL Health Care Reform, don't forget that Obama has also promised "Entitlement Reform".....


Better get the Vaseline ready.
What the Republicans were unable to do will get done by the "Centrist" Democrats.



NOW we have Your Children’s Money too !!!
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it!
Now THIS is “Post-Partisanship” !
Better get used to it!!
Hahahahahahahahaha!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

22. Schumer's public option is a cynical con designed to fail.

It will be underfunded and fail miserably very quickly. It will be used forever after as the poster child of why a public option doesn't work. Medicare works (or at least it did until they saddled it with the no negotiation drug benefit), and the VA works, there is no reason that a REAL public option should not work.

[scentopine]

19. Worse than what we have

Here is analysis from link provided by marmar http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5672807&mesg_id=5672807

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/17-0

We are so rigidly dogmatic about the goodness inherent in the unregulated free market while at the same time so callous toward others (torture, Iraq invasion, etc) that things can only get worse. (Iraq was American Idol schadenfreude dance, we simply voted Iraq off the planet). There are rarely any negative consequences for this abject and gratuitous "meanness". Instead, we celebrate it. And when the free market fails to yield the desired results, it must be gods will.

So it goes with health care. When a person gets sick and can't afford treatment they may die. The free marketers will tell you that's necessary and desirable because it filters out the weak who are only a burden on their profits. The free market should be allowed to set the price of life. Health care executives keep increasing the price of life as long they can make a profit. Of course, the profit comes after they an enormous share in salary, bonuses, stock etc. From the social conservatives the argument goes - if we provide cheap health care to anyone, there would be no incentive to get a job and work. Rich people are rich because of their own individual efforts and should be rewarded with access to care.

While medical ethics debate has focused on issues like abortion and gene therapy, stem cells, etc there is not nearly the concern about the ethics and consequences for this behavior. And don't look for the AMA or other organizations to weigh in on your side. Its just another business. Medicine or jelly beans, its all about the cash flow. And the cash flow is good. Very good. There has never been a better opportunity to make it even better for them and worse for us. If you don't believe its us versus them, simply review transcripts of Enron energy traders.

Americans are not so much citizens in a democracy as we are indentured employees of a some sort of odd quasi-governmental corporate state. Our last president claimed he was the CEO president. We liked that idea so much we elected him twice. And indeed, he governed in a dictatorial/authoritarian style without rule of law of congressional oversight through his use of executive signing orders and Dick Cheney's shadow government.

According to US labor stats from 1998 to 2002 show almost 60% of all new corporations fail within five years. These days it is reasonable to say it is much worse. For any new health care initiative being formulated by an aggressive breed of corporate free marketeers, the profit motives and opportunities for corruption are massive. Just as they were during first S&L, and Enron, and Investment banking frauds. Not only will we suffer, in 5 or 6 years that suffering gets compounded with another huge government bail-out to rescue health care providers: who are too big to fail.

[shanejfilomena]

20. I think it's all.....

I think it's all much -ado-about nothing. Mass hysteria and speculation driven out of fear that the past Republican empire brewed in our hearts.

It's ok to trust your government.....it's not ok to leave your "representatives" without your input and demand from them their opinions, positions and the facts of the maters that concern you.

Most people elect these "Representatives" based on a good platform or another ( or pick the lesser if the evils ) and then go on to wonder and fear the consequences of their actions without being an active part of the Representative's role in their lives.

YES, elected officials are like your children....you MUST be there to give your input and obtain their stand-point views of the world so you can shape them in the image you believe would serve the greater good.

[autorank]

21. Since Big Pharma still owns Congres and

since what they don't own, they can rent

I'm sure it will have serious flaws that make things worse.

Remember the Clinton plan. That one left out coverage for mental health, in large part.

There are numerous ways to screw this up, even if you favor it.

[Mike 03]

25. Upon what logical or historical basis do you assume this? And why are people agreeing,

without any sort of evidence?

[Faryn Balyncd]

27. Do you not consider the Baucus hearings evidence? & is not the hiring as a "White House adviser"....

.....a person who advocates a mandatory private-insurance-only scheme which not only eliminates any public option plan for younger Americans, but actually advocates the PRIVATIZATION of Medicare, by forcing future retirees to continue with their mandated insurance ---- Are not these actions evidence to cause reasonable Democrats to question the administration's commitment to enact a plan which includes a viable PUBLIC OPTION (the type of plan for which Obama campaigned)?

[scentopine]

28. Let me try...

Google "obama health care plan criticism" Using last 30 days, 1,140,000 hits. From those you can easily find the core problems with the plan. Additional "features" are filtering out in real time. Single payer was dead on arrival because of corporate opposition. I find it hard to believe that it is hard to find rational criticism of these plans.

You can disagree, but your challenge is unnecessarily confrontational and a non-argument. To me it is sort of like - "on what historical basis or logic do you have to say that Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons ready to drop on NYC?"

From the perspective of letting industry formulate its own legislation, and raw secular logic regarding industry and regulation, see my post above.

That post had this link.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/17-0

Here are some briefs on the subject.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009221164_opinc15amygoodman.html

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/12/kucinich-slams-obama-healthcare-savings-unconscionable-rip-off/

From history, Michael Moore did an excellent job of documenting the many problems with for profit health care and these same associations are formulating new policy. His expose on Kaiser HMO and Nixon (including audio tapes) was excellent.

I do believe the analysis from the not for profit organizations who devote 100% of their efforts studying these issues. I also believe history will prove these people correct. I do not believe the Pollyanna talk about health care reform from Obama. I'm actually embarrassed by his claim of 2 trillion of savings. Kucinich nailed it.

Pelosi took impeachment off the table. Obama took single payer off the table. I personally am sick of this protecting corporate/republican interests shit.

[galloglas]

29. WORSE than anything the GOP could ??

Are you kidding ?? The GOP could make a more diabolically disastrous health care reform than Satan himself!!

[Faryn Balyncd]

31. But could the GOP, or Satan himself , have a chance to get their diabolical plan passed into law?

But could the GOP, or Satan himself (as you put it), have a chance to get their diabolical plan passed into law?


My point if it had been the GOP that put up a malignant, mandatory-private-insurance-only scheme with no public option written by industry insiders, it would have had NO CHANCE TO PASS.

If it had been Bush/Cheney who had hired a health-care "adviser" who advocates the actual PRIVATIZATION of Medicare, we would not only be up in arms, but the Democratic caucus would have been united in opposition, and it would have had no chance to pass.

But that a bill written by insiders, with the complicity of Democratic "centrist" politicians (who happen to be to the right of the 62% of Americans who favor a public plan similar to Medicare for all Americans) just might get passed. And, by further enriching and entrenching the insurance industry at the heart of the problem, destroy the chance of genuine reform.

[galloglas]

32. Want Government coverage option and single payer??

So do I. Let's push Obama, et al., to do so.

But, doesn't change the fact that the GOP can make anything worse than the Democrats or Satan himself.:rofl:

[Faryn Balyncd]

49. Will not the administration cave to industry interests unless we make clear that we will ONLY suppor

...... support a plan that includes a viable public option.


If we do not draw a line in the sand, with Howard Dean, are not we dooming a public option plan to defeat at the hands of the corporatists?


And, this time, if the corporatists win another give-away of unprecedented proportions, will this not be a threat to the very survival of our economy, our system of democratic capitalism, and our open society?

[galloglas]

52. There are two options

When you draw a line in the sand, you leave only two options. Most warfare, political or real life, consists of many battles but very few "total victory" scenarios. The way you phrase your question about Dr. Dean these are the two options.

A) Win a total victory right now and we all will be happy.

B) Fail to win a total victory and:

Risk allowing a GOP, which is in its death throes, to survive and rebound instead of having its remnants reform and create some newer and saner party down the road (remember Napoleon's crushing loss at Moscow in an attempt at total victory?) and risk an almost a certainty a loss of an almost total control of the agenda in Congress.

IMHO, the one thing that we have accomplished, that cannot be given up, is the formation of a body of public opinion and activism that can turn this nation, and world, upon its head. We simply cannot fall to the foolish notion that we have to win 100% of all battles 100% of the time until we are at our end goal. We must understand that our continued survival will lead to eventual victory... if we stay together. Failure to follow this will lead us off a cliff to the land that Alexander the Great found... destruction.

Like the IRA, we must understand that our continued survival is our number one priority, otherwise all is lost. We must have our second priority as the achievement of 100% of our goals... but we don't have to get it all today. Particularly if it risks us never seeing the morrow.

My tactic? Push them to the wall on this and take what we can get now. Then continue to insist on reforming the reform, from day ONE.

Keep in mind. Like the Bolsheviks, we can totally change everything if we win. The corporatists can only maintain the status quo. So, when we win, we take all of their marbles and do what we wish.

The only thing that can prevent that is being too audacious and risking our movement's existence, which we would be doing if we follow the plan as outlined. What difference if we deconstruct the corporations on two months or two years? It will be forever.


To add this thought: We are not the administration nor should we be tied to them. Regardless of what the administration does, we should maintain our momentum and direction. We fight the GOP, so we should oppose the administration if necessary.

[Faryn Balyncd]

55. Your statement that I favor only a total victory is not correct..........

Nor is your statement that the best the corporatists can do is to maintain the status quo (that no outcome would in fact strengthen the corporatist position).

Nowhere in my statements have I advocated only a total victory (such as Single Payer or nothing, even though I believe a Single Payer system would be more ideal).

What I have opposed is a mind-set that assumes any change is a change for the better.

Specifically, recognizing that a "reform" which does not include a viable public option, and which mandates purchase of private-insurance-only will entrench and enrich corporate interests.

The pharmaceutical companies did not JUST maintain the status quo with the 2005 Medicare Px Drug Benefit (which would not have passed without the leadership of Max Baucus and the support of other corporatist Democrats). To the contrary, corporate interests were advanced by that "benefit", and they subsequently were able to massively inflate prices of drugs for Americans of all ages, not just Medicare beneficiaries.

It's interesting that those who point out the reality that a "reform" that lacks a public option is a STEP BACKWARDS, not forwards, are regularly falsely accused of advocating all-or-nothing.

The truth is that there is a clear difference between advocating only total victory, and recognizing at what point a partial "victory" ceases to become a move forward, and is in reality a defeat.

We must awaken to the real danger that the corporatist may strengthen their position by peddling a bill that allows progressives to falsely believe they have made a small step forward, when the reality is a large stepo backwards.

[Occam Bandage]

30. Even if all your worst-cases happen, that's still far better

than McCain's plan to replace health insurance with tax-free, health-care-only savings accounts.

[Faryn Balyncd]

34. Is your measure of a good bill that it be better than something McCain proposed?

[Occam Bandage]

35. No. It's my measure of a bill that is not "worse than the GOP could do."

It's not a very high bar to pass, but I'm not the one who set it.

[Faryn Balyncd]

36. Might you consider that the bar over which a good bill must pass over, and the bar under which......

....the corporate interests are working to create a bad bill which would pass under, may, perhaps, be different bars?


And that you and I may be on the same team?

[Occam Bandage]

37. Sure. I was just answering the question posed in the OP. nt

[BlooInBloo]

33. Of course DUers think that. Because Obama is soooo bushian.

[bertman]

38. I think it's a definite maybe. But I HOPE I'm wrong.

[philly_bob]

39. Maybe offer a public option ... but only to the uninsured. Brilliant!

That keeps the majority of people locked into insurance plans. Or forces them to go without insurance in order to qualify for public option.

[undergroundpanther]

40. I'm scared of it

Privatization leads to misery for most riches for a few off our misery.

I am tired of that sour old shit of privatizing,I don't think corporations should have any rights or person hood.I wish corporations that put profits over life were shut down and the Ceo's and executive boards got kicked into the gutters,locked up and were hated,all of 'em.
And the wealth confiscated from the pigs was put into the people's service, no republicans could touch it,no military, no corporate,no religions,and no skimming off the top by ANY politician or rich person.Privatization is a failure because private run anything becomes for profit.Profit,getting something more for nothing more is theft and it has to DIE.

[Old Hob]

45. Obama can't be taxing my health insurance or my red bull or my CO2.

because he told me that he's only raising taxes on people who earn more than a quarter million dollars a year. Or was it 150,000/year?

[Vinca]

47. The Republican solution has always been a tax deduction and

a health savings account and I wouldn't expect they'd come up with anything else. I'm nervous about the Democratic plan, to be sure, but it's got to to better than tax deductions.

[Old Hob]

48. You think a tax imposition is better than a tax deduction? Why?

[rockymountaindem]

50. Because the Republican "tax deduction" probably won't cover very much

I'd wager it would leave people twisting in the wind while Republicans tout their "progress". Kind of like the donut hole in prescription drug coverage did: "Hey everybody, if your drug costs are small and cheap for the government to cover, we'll cover them. If they're huge and totally impossible to afford, we'll take pity and cover you too. If your drug costs are financially crippling, but not so bad they're literally killing you (at least not yet), then you're on your own."

Remember that?

[Vinca]

56. If I end up paying more taxes for healthcare, I would imagine they

will be a fraction of the $12,000 a year plus $5,000 a head deductible plus co-pays I would be shelling out if anyone would insure an older woman with pre-existing conditions. They won't, by the way. As for the deduction, assuming I itemize deductions (and many people do not), on the premium plus deductibles, a whopping $22,000 in our household, I would save about $8,000 if I happened to hit the highest tax bracket (I wish). That would leave me still paying $14,000 plus the co-pays and the zillion and 1 things insurance suddenly decides they won't cover. Assuming a public option is included in the healthcare reform, I imagine the most it would cost would be similar to what states such as Vermont and Massachusetts charge for their programs and that is about half of what it would cost if I bought into the tax deduction scheme.

[hangman86]

54. Uh...Romney's original plan was completley rewritten by Democrats

and Massachusett's uninsured numbers have been falling greatly ever since.

I know single payer is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but it's never going to pass this year, with or without the President's support.

[Faryn Balyncd]

57. But will not a plan WITHOUT a public option actually make your "end of the rainbow" unattainable?

....... (perhaps forever)?





The OP is not exclusively, or even primarily, about advocacy for Single Payer.

I personally believe that Single Payer would be a better system, but that a plan such as the one Obama campaigned on ------ a hybrid plan that allows Americans to keep their insurance if they desire, but PRESERVES A PUBLIC OPTION -------- would be a move in the right direction.

Perhaps even more relevant is that a mandatory plan that lacks a public option (a position Obama has NEVER supported, but which is being peddled by "White House adviser" Zeke Emanuel, Rahm's brother, whose plan not only would eliminate public options but PRIVATIZE MEDICARE) would not be a move in the right direction. But would, in fact, significantly entrench Big Insurance, and be the kiss of death for ever being able to pass an afordable, comprehensive Single Payer Medicare-for-All system.




And yes, Democrats did collaborate with Romney in the corporatist-friendly Massachusetts plan, just as did Max Baucus in writing and passing Bush/Cheney's Medicare Px Drug fiasco.

In pointing out this major danger (that Democrats often facilitate the passage of malignant legislation) you have performed a significant service.

[debbierlus]

59. The corporate fascists were clever in their new Presidential appointment - if Bush proposed the same

Things...

There would be MUTINY on this board.

But, Obama does it and many of his supporters think it is okay because it is Obama doing it. They believe in him, so they believe he is representing them.

This whole scam is disgusting, and it is transparent.

Who the hell cares about the politican anyway? When are we going to unite around POLICY???

[readmoreoften]

65. Nobody understands policy. They want a politician to trust.

We think we're a political nation but we're not. We're radically depoliticized. We consider "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" to mean freedom from having to be political, to read, to fight. It's all about choosing a brand and if our brand doesn't do as we please we'll "boycott" and buy another. Unfortunately there are only two brands and one is publicly unacceptable. The other hides its dirty work in policy.

[truedelphi]

83. As for your last sentence, pls inform me:

Which is which?

Or should I toss a coin? It is pretty much like we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

69. Yes the push for mandated private insurance WOULD make things worse.

It would make the insurance cos more powerful,
congress more corrupt,
and create incentive for rationing,

we would pay top dollar for stripped down services
maybe with more people shut out
and
we still would not be able to compete in the world market.

[Canuckistanian]

78. Not really. I think they liked the status quo.

Health care reform was NEVER one of their issues. They thought that health care was better taken care of by those mysterious "market forces". They tended to view government involvement as "obstructionist" to that process.

It's Democrats and Democrat-leaning people (who are now in the majority) who are demanding "reform".

They never wanted "reform" at all and I'm guessing that they'd really just like this little "issue" to be band-aided and forgotten.

Too bad they won't get their wish.

[Imagevision]

79. Michael Moore's 'sICKO' had some pretty good points world wide, even Cuba!

[shimmergal]

82. Yes. I worry about that.

Our line in the sand should be: No public option = no mandate.

Actually it's maddening to think of govt. money going to subsidize private insurance companies at all. Even the subsidies for Cobra purchases should have been used to allow Cobra-eligible people into a govt. plan for the duration when they don't have other insurance.

However, if the worst came to pass it COULD be remedied by:

1. Govt. subsidies to private companies should/could allow overriding their decisions for the public good. and...

2. We need, not a 1% reduction in the cost increases, but a cramdown of many medical charges.

'Course I know the chances of either of these things happening is less than the chance of manned flight to Mars in my lifetime. But the point is, they COULD be done. And we'd be better off if they were.

[dreamnightwind]

86. Our line in the sand should be: No public option = no mandate.

Exactly!

[Skittles]

87. I'm pretty sure it's gonna stink

[Kansas Wyatt]

92. The Democrats are following the BushCo Prescription Medicare Plan

Which was only a giveaway to Corporate America.

When all is said and done, that is exactly what the Democrats will give us. I do not give a shit how smart people say their leaders (government representatives) are... They are either in Corporate America's pocket or they are dumber than a box of rocks, and the R and D brands are meaningless, if we end up with the same fucking outcome.

After running out all other industries, now Corporate America has set it's sights on feeding off the carcass of 'We The People.' It's all they have left, and "WE" will be indebted till the day we die.

[harun]

94. They probably will enact something that makes the for-profit insurers

more profitable. This will be devastating for the Dem party. The repukes will get back in power from the backlash and we will start all over again.