Just so we're clear: Single-Payer is the CENTRIST position

[jgraz]

It's supported by the majority of Americans, and is a middle-of-the-road compromise between the true left position (socialized medicine) and the right-wing corporate position (free-market competition with a government option).

What we have now, and what the Pukes and DLCers are trying to continue, is a far-right, neo-liberal, Ayn Randian dystopia. Let's quit pretending this position is even *remotely* defensible.

[lindisfarne]

1. More Americans support the public option which provides for a private insurance option. n/t

[lindisfarne]

2. See #7 & #11 here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5864814#5865541

[jgraz]

37. More data on majority support for single-payer

http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer/
http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

This is with about two minutes of google-ing.

[karynnj]

55. The first one is inaccurate reading of the question asked in the NYT/CBS poll

The question is - not describing single payer but a public option.

[jgraz]

58. The question is about national health insurance

Back then, "national health insurance" meant single-payer. It still does.

If you're still unclear, notice that other option in the poll is "private enterprise". A mixed system is never mentioned.

[karynnj]

72. Back then??? it was this month!

Here is the NYT article on the poll, which is more detailed than the CBS version they link to. Here is the paragraph on that:

"The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=health%20care%20poll&st=cse
This is a mixed system. That is the standard definition of having a public option, not single payer.

In addition, the NYT published the actual poll with all the questions and cross tabs. http://documents.nytimes.com/latest-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-on-health#p=6 This is question 68. Many questions are interesting, showing that both Democrats and Republicans have succeeded to some extent in getting there talking points out. There is a wealth of information here that bears looking at.

The closest I can see to something that breaks out single payer is Question 43, because single payer really is redoing the entire system. In which case, support is at 34%. This, however, is likely the MINIMUM for single payer because it does not present the alternative in terms of what it is.

Now, I would prefer a question with 3 clear definitions - for single payer, private with a public option, and all private. This would be even more interesting if it was done twice. Once asking individually if each option was "acceptable" to them and a second time to ask which they prefer. If there were polls done that way, what people want would be far more obvious, though even then it would be influenced by how the definitions were written. But, although that is not here, there are some interesting results.

[jgraz]

102. Read the poll again. They first asked the question in 1979.

But in the bigger picture, the question is moot. Whatever support we have for single-payer came without a shred of support from the media or so-called "mainstream" politicians. If we actually had a real single-payer debate, the support would be in the 80s.

[karynnj]

110. What does the fact that they have polled the exact same question

since 1979 have to do with the interpretation of the question? This is common practice if you want to look at opinion over time - wording matters in polls. I posted the cross tabs which show that entire history - of course I know that it has been asked since 1979. (I gave the question number which should tell you I bothered to look at the question. Common sense should tell you I looked at the results as well.)

Your view that support would be in the 80s is conjecture. I actually think that that level of support could not come unless it were implemented. Too many who are content with what they have, fear losing it and the single payer being not as good. I don't think it is either sensible or helpful to your cause to bully people or to distort results. My comments were on the interpretation made on a poll's results. I backed my assertion with the complete documentation of the poll. This appears to be a well done poll.

A poll though measures what people think, not what objectively, if there were a measure of that, would be best for people.

[Oregone]

12. Why cede to the tyranny of the majority, rather than do the "right thing"

There is no added value to private insurers, functionally or intrinsically

[Butch350]

14. The needs of the many...

outway the needs of the few, AND YOU!

[Oregone]

16. Exactly, and the needs of the many are served by Single-Payer.

You do not let public opinion polls (that sway like the wind blows) come between the proper course of action for the benefit of society.

[Butch350]

17. Thank-you for making the point.

[lindisfarne]

23. Yes you do, if you want to get any kind of reform passed. Purists would rather fail than get a step

in the right direction.

And as I've said before, "single payer" is not a single entity, so define what you mean.
Many countries don't have single payer yet have excellent health care, even better than some single payer countries.
If in the US 83 million are covered by Medicare, and in the UK, 60 million are covered by NHS, which government payer covers more people?
If a public option has 200 million covered through a government plan, that's pretty darn good.

[Oregone]

26. Maybe this isn't a step in the right direction.

Its just a step. Its not in the direction of single-payer. The quickest path from point A to point B is a straight line, and this reform doesn't lie there.

[jgraz]

40. This is not a step in the right direction

This is the *only* step we're gonna take. We'd better make sure it's the right one.

[eridani]

70. A public option may or may not be a step in the right direction

If it's designed as an underfunded dumping grounds for poor and sick people, it will be worse than what we have now. If anyone can join, and if it's finances are managed like those of Medicare, that would be enrirely different.

[customerserviceguy]

80. That's exactly what I see happening with public option

I'm a bit puzzled as to why the ins companies are opposing it, they would find a way to dump their highest-cost customers on to it.

[Greyhound]

81. Not at $7,000 per person it's not, and if it's less the poor corporations can't "compete".

Shit coverage is just as bad or worse than no coverage, and if the "public option" is restrained by what the parasites will allow, it will be an expensive piece of shit and then the parasites get to say, "see, it doesn't work".

This has nothing to do with purity or ponies, it is about people being killed in order to keep a few assholes super-rich and the dimwits that cheer it on.

[kenny blankenship]

21. Particularly since there's no numerical basis for the tyranny

If 70% of the country wants "public option" and 49% wants "single payer" then you don't need to be Einstein to figure out that this math doesn't add. It's not 70 vs 50 public option vs. single payer. It's 70 / 30 public option vs. status quo, and basically an even split (51/49 is within the statistical margin of error of a even split) between single payer vs. status quo.

The lion's share of the 70% who say they want a public option are actually also for single payer. They'll take public option over the status quo as well - which is no surprise. Half the fucking country being for single payer without either party's leaders being in favor of it and with all the corporate media agitating against it is FUCKING HUGE.

Liars, asswipes, and Republicans in Dems clothing come along and try to portray Single Payer as some kind of crazy, extreme, beyond the pale LEFTIST position to take in the healthcare debate. Find ANYTHING that half the country supports being described that way. FIND ANYTHING ELSE in American life that half the country wants but is blacklisted as "outside the mainstream", "unacceptable to the center of public opinion", "wacky", "extreme Left", etc.

Defending the status quo is the extremist position here.

[Zodiak]

88. You want another issue like that?

How about marijuana legalization?

[lindisfarne]

22. Ask the OP "It's supported by the majority of Americans".

[Oregone]

28. I don't think it is

Only 49% in the last poll I saw. 49% with chicken shit politicians dancing around it. 49% in a country where the media wont touch it. 49% in a country terrified of Canada's single-payer system, brain-washed by free-market mumbo jumbo, and completely ignorant of most anything not discussed on The View.

Now...just imagine, if, well someone with some sway and charisma....not sure who that could be....grew some nuts, turned down some bribes, and got on TV and pushed it.

[jgraz]

38. ,

http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer/
http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

[ihavenobias]

44. EXACTLY. Imagine if people were informed and not pumped full of misinformation from Fox, Rush, etc.

Then there would also be a strong majority in favor of a single payer system.

[Enthusiast]

73. This has been my central point

If the public only hears a constant diatribe against the evils of socialized medicine, the public cannot make an informed choice. As far as it goes the public never hears the truth about single payer. And, come on, it is not just the medical issue, it is every issue, the MSM is killing us.

[jgraz]

36. it is.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer/

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

[pauldg0]

68. Wouldn't single payer be for the uninsured initially?

....the existing insured will have to put up with their scumbag companies until they realize there is competition and lower cost choices. The crooked insurance companies will either be forced to compete (highly unlikely) or quit.

I don't think you can instantly provide single payer to everyone intantly, do you?

[ProudDad]

95. HR676 phases in a full single-payer system

in 10 years.

It's all there, check it out...

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/key_features_of_singlepayer.php
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/Myths-and-Facts-on-single-payer.pdf
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/july/_health_insurance_fo.php
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/myths_as_barriers.php
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/myths_memes.pdf
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/mythbusters_by_the_canadian_health_services_research_foundation.php

HR676 has been crafted over the last 17 years to take into account how others have done it, how it can be done in USAmerica, what to do about the good workers who will "lose their jobs" in the health insurance industry (most of the useful ones will be given preference by the new single-payer system)...

The whole bill: http://www.pnhp.org/docs/nhi_bill_final1.pdf

[quidam56]

19. We must have a public option

Too many American's are being ripped off by the politicians and the profit machines. The health care system spends $ 1.4 Million per day lobbying Congress, that sure could go a long way to help so many folks who need health care. I know exactly what the outcome is of the status quo. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62 It's called quality health care in Tennessee and Virginia.

[Romulox]

3. Thank you for the OP. We've been pretending that radical capitalism is the "neutral" position

for far too long, in no small measure because of "third way" Democrats and their triangulation.

[Cleita]

4. Yes, it is. It's almost conservative.

Health care remains in the private sector with health care providers and doctors competing with each other in the marketplace. The only thing socialistic about it is how the money is collected and then paid out to those providers. It simply cuts out the middle men, the parasitic insurers, who really contribute nothing to health care and are quite unnecessary IMHO.

[TheKentuckian]

5. I'd say that in American politics that the public option is roughly middle of the road

but single payer is the leftist position. I've heard almost no one ever or anywhere pushing for "socialized medicine".

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Not in government and that is the point

outside of government the polls tell you 70% want it.

You know we the little people who don't really matter.

[jgraz]

8. That's because we keep electing center-right corporate butt monkeys

If ANYONE in politics had the stones to advocate for a true government-run program, you'd see a lot of people agreeing with the position.

Right now, the so-called public debate is rigged.

[Oregone]

15. The "public option" is a new concept to the American debate really

It shows you how quickly perception can change in 3 months. Current opinion polls on concepts the America public is receptive to, but not informed, are useless in determining where opinion would really lie. Its the lack of political leadership and coverage (leading to education) that is suppressing the support for single-payer (which most don't understand), rather than the people's political ideology.

[cascadiance]

18. Single payer does NOT "socialize" health care...

It has the government PAY for health care, NOT control the doctors or hospitals that give the health care to patients. You could argue that it socializes health care payments, but arguably is that a bad thing? It focuses on the key element of health care to correct the emphasis on profits vs. people's health. Now down the road, there might also be some updates to the system to ensure that non-government run doctors or health care entities don't try to "game" the government payment system by overcharging, etc., but I think most people don't want to extend government control over everything. I think most people see the result of centrally planned communist societies failing to know that is not the answer either, but a system without regulation thats only rule is profit is just as bad.

In effect we already have a system of "socialized medicine", except it is under control of financial elites instead of our government. Those of us who do have insurance in many cases (perhaps most cases) don't have real choice over which insurance plans to sign up with which DOES control which doctors we see (when they are outside the network and force us to pay MORE for our care out of pocket). We're just given what our employer gives us, or what we get stuck with from them when we get laid off, like so many of us have now in this economy. We can't really force upon the insurance companies more competitive pressure of going to another insurance provider if their plans aren't competitive or don't provide proper care that we need of them. We're stuck with them, just as many complain we'd be "stuck" with a government run payment plan. At least with a government run plan, we have more ways to control who's in government and in so doing how they put together such a plan. I'd rather have a "socialized medicine" plan that's highest priority is satisfying voters, than one that just satisfies the quest for profits from investors. The former would seem more likely to care about how well the people's health is taken care of.

We socialize other things in society where we don't want just profit governing over issues that can decide who lives and dies (police workers, firemen, etc.). Watch "Gangs of New York" to see the hell that happens when firefighting is privatized and not a service that everyone can expect.

[jgraz]

27. Exactly. It socializes health *insurance*

Which is why it's a compromise between right-wing capitalism and true socialism. It still leaves profit in the system for healthcare providers and drug companies.

Personally, I'd like to see the entire health industry nationalized and all medical schools become tuition-free. We should be pushing that idea, if only to show that there is a real, viable option to the left of single-payer.

[Fedja]

63. Have you been drinking?

Stop using Socialism or any other -ism you don't understand as a speaking point. The modern capitalist state retains full ownership of the vital services such as mail, police, army, healthcare...

Careful with the S-term, if you use it the wrong way someone's gonna grab it and beat you with it.

[jgraz]

65. Uh oh. Looks like someone just finished their socialism unit in Poli Sci 101

First step if you want to pretend you know what you're talking about: learn basic grammar. The word "socialism" is not capitalized -- unless you named your dog "Socialism".

Also, the "have you been drinking" line has been done to death. Next time you want to act superior, try something original. It'll make you seem like less of a poser.

[Fedja]

66. The second step

As far as capitalization goes, it's a matter of nuance in what one is referring to. It is (correctly) capitalized when referring to the practical system of a political and economic organization, but let's not split hairs, I can't be arsed to go and proofread your posts, with which I mostly agree.

I don't remember taking Poli Sci, but I figure my take on socialism (as a non-capitalized philosophical concept) gains some credibility by the other classes I took. Namely, Citizen Education, Philosophy, Sociology, History of Law, Roman Law, Constitutional Law, International Constitutional Law, Political Economics... Furthermore, I figure it helps a bit that I was born in Yugoslavia under Tito and lived to see Socialism (that particular pure form of it) evolve, live in practice, slowly dissolve, and transform into what is now a modern social capitalist state.

Snide sarcasm is one thing, but don't jump to conclusions too much, you may end up looking silly.

[jgraz]

67. And yet somehow, with all this alleged experience...

you never managed to pick up basic manners.

Next time, try dialing down the pomposity. You'll get a better response.

[Fedja]

106. Wasn't being pompous.

I literally get a small seisure every time I see someone pull the "socialism" card in improper context or factually incorrectly. Not because of me, but because of you. The abuse of the term is one of the major reasons people die in the US without healthcare every day.

[Enthusiast]

75. Where can we vote for you? nt

[Enthusiast]

74. That is because

the corporate MSM filter doesn't want the truth about socialized medicine out there.

[ProudDad]

98. SINGLE-PAYER IS NOT "SOCIALIST"

GOD!

Quit drinking the right-wing, AMA, health insurance mafia and drug pusher's Kool-aid!!!

The only "socialist-type" single payer systems are in Great Britain and Sweden. All the rest, including Canada, are SINGLE-PAYER -- NOT "SOCIALIST"!!!

And what the hell is wrong with "Socialism"?

Don't you drive over socialist roads, protected by socialist police and fire departments bringing your children to your socialist public schools or attending events at your socialist convention centers and theaters?

Sheesh. How much longer do we have to hear alleged Democrats spout this sh*t...

[PHIMG]

7. SINGLE PAYER = Win for the Tax Payer

Lesser reform proposals are larded up with corporate welfare, draining the treasury of hundreds of billions in new subsidies for the profiteering health insurers. Single Payer, on the other hand pays for itself. It saves hundreds of billions every year by eliminating the private insurers including their obscene profits, massive bureaucracy and waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. private health care model, adopted Single Payer in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little increase in overall health care spending. Single payer is fiscally conservative with liberal benefits.

Who is opposed:

PRIVATE HEALTH INSURERS
Corporate for-profit insurance companies make obscene profits by denying needed medical care. The insurers have spent hundreds of millions corrupting the political system to keep our broken system unchanged so that the insurers can continue to service their insatiable greed. Under Single Payer private insurers are eliminated.

DRUG PROFITEERS
Nearly every other country in the world negotiates with drug companies to reduce the cost of medications. Under Single Payer drug companies will no longer be free to price-gouge American patients for needed medications.

POLITICIANS
Polls show huge public support for a national single payer system that covers everyone. However, our elected officials refuse to even talk about single payer while they instead work to protect the insurance and pharmaceutical industries that contribute millions to their campaigns. Call your elected officials today and tell them to fight for a national single payer system- the only reform that can sustainably solve our health care crisis. Capitol switchboard: [phone].

[jgraz]

9. And for whichever party implements it

If the Democrats had the spine to deliver a true single-payer option, you'd never see another Repuke majority in our lifetimes.

[Oregone]

10. I agree to an extent, except....

When it controls the market by putting downward pressure on prices, thereby making it unprofitable for private industry to operate (but fine for public facilities). Also, being that it can by funded by progressive taxation (or, on the other hand, GST), it can become more progressive

Since Ive seen and experienced it, I realized how much of a compromise it really is though, and its incredibly pragmatic in an effective way too. The thing is, I am not sure how much would be saved if you socialized every single facility in the US (and paid fair rates for takeovers). This would create a huge system with massive overhead that could simply be unneeded. Do we need a government run clinic on every block? Is that the most efficient way to organize a socialized medical system? I don't know the answers to that. Regardless, single-payer strikes in the middle, but still drastically reduces costs and can progressively cover everyone.

[jgraz]

47. But it won't become more progressive

What will happen is exactly what's happening to public education: the govt will underfund it, the rich will have their private options, and the system will suck indefinitely and be used as another example of how "government is the problem, not the solution".

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Single-payer is about as radical as the local fire department

And those places are hotbeds of subversion, doncha know

[Oregone]

13. Less actually

Imagine private fire facilities, and a public funding source that pays out to each one for services rendered.

[jgraz]

39. Can you imagine a Repuke-style fire department?

"We're sorry, sir. You need to get pre-approval for any grease fires you're planning on having."

[eridani]

109. You had a grease fire last year

We will never come to your house again.

[unblock]

20. "free-market competition" is NOT a right-wing corporate position

and i think you meant "withOUT public option".

the right-wing does not believe in genuine capitalism, which requires a level playing field and geniune competition so that buyers can make rational, informed decisions and poor businesses actually fail.

the right-wing instead believes in doing whatever the big existing corporations want, which often includes deceiving customers and investors, erecting barriers to competition, merging to eliminate competitors, and so on.

in this case the right-wing corporate position is that the government should use its awesome powers to force everyone to fork over money to the insurance companies while simulataneously preventing victims of health care disasters from suing for a remotely reasonable amount.

[Oregone]

25. But why must insurance, in the scope of the country, include "free-market competition" at all?

Would the public support privatized Unemployment Insurance? This makes no sense at all.

The reality is that insurance is a very unique field, enhanced not by competition, but rather by the size of the risk pool. Insurance doesn't thrive on massive revenues to create constant innovation. In fact, there is no innovation, and there isn't even a product in insurance. Its a very unique industry in itself. There aren't even the typical "Means of Production", such that, the shareholders would be justified in profiting from their ownership thereof. Despite the competition, this has shown, empiracally, to make a much less efficient system than a non-profit, non-competing single-payer system.

A government must look industry to industry to determine what economic model produces and delivers goods most efficiently to the most people (which by in large, has been determined to be either free market or mixed market). The government has even delivered single-payer services (and continues to do so). There is no one-size-fits-all approaches. Insurance just happens to be one of those industries that fits in a strange little place where capitalistic economic models do not benefit it whatsoever. Therefore, anyone that suggests "free-market competition" for their position to enhance insurance is either not informed, or is a right-wing corporatist looking after their own profits.

[unblock]

30. good point. and what competition there is takes a very odd form.

they don't compete by offering a better product. in fact, the vast majority of health insurance dollars ultimately come from employees (via paycheck deductions and employer cost sharing) yet the choice is made strictly by the employers. employees usually have a take-it-or-leave-it choice. some two-earner families have a limited choice if their employers have different plans, though this is highly influenced by the employer subsidy rather that the quality of the actual insurance product.

even if you could choose from amoung a wide variety of plans and carriers, it's virtually impossible to compare them. the policies are many hundred pages long, with confusing riders, and even if you plowed through them you'd still not get the complete picture because so much depends on the actual claims payment rates, ease of prior approvals, size and quality of provider network in your area, their idea of "usual and customary" prices, and so on -- all of which could change after you sign up.

the only way they really compete is from the point of view of investors. they compete to see who can deny the most health care while maintaining customers and premium levels, thereby yielding the most profits.

[Greyhound]

82. Collusion is far more profitable than competition and the insurance industry

lives on this fundamental truth.

[jgraz]

29. You're confusing conservatism and fascism

Applying free-market competition to life-and-death services like health care is about as right-wing as it gets.

The so-called "private option" is the equivalent of those school vouchers that are so beloved by Repukes and their lapdogs in the DLC . It just seems centrist when viewed from within our current nightmare.

[unblock]

33. i didn't use either of those terms.

today's right-wingers aren't "conservative" in the sense that people like barry goldwater once used the term.
today's right-wingers essentially are fascists, though that term is out of favor so they use terms like "conservativism" when they mean "fascism" and "capitalism" when they mean "large-scale private enterprise with public subsidies, protections, and bailouts".

[Selatius]

43. You're looking for the term "Corporatism"

There's a quotation attributed to Fascist Dictator Benito Mussolini that says that "fascism" should be more appropriately defined as "corporatism," because it is a merger of state and corporate power. Hitler's Germany seemed to be the ultimate expression of that. The industrialists in Germany at the time cut deals with Hitler. If they produced the machines of war that Hitler wanted, then they would be given preferential treatment and a seat at the table of power. An example is the IBM company selling accounting machinery to the 3rd Reich tailored specifically to keep track of the body count and the names of victims in the horrific death camps the regime ran like Auschwitz or Dachau.

[Enthusiast]

76. Whatever it is we have it. nt

[Selatius]

41. As far as the notion of insurance goes, the logic seems to be the exact opposite than imagined.

In terms of buying, say, a computer or a laptop, more competition leads to innovation and more choice. It also leads competitors to try to differentiate their products to attract certain niche customers. Competition also leads to efficient production of products and services. Firms that are inefficient in this regard are priced out of business eventually. As a result, firms try to reach what is known as economies of scale. Basically, what that means is if you set up a factory to produce cars, you want to produce as many cars as possible to spread out the costs. If you only built one car, then that car would have to recoup all the money spent building the entire facility and hiring the entire workforce there.

However, in terms of offering insurance, any insurance, competition actually makes it harder to achieve efficiency, namely economies of scale. One insurance company that represents everybody has infinitely more power to keep costs down in terms of medical procedures, tests, and prescription drugs than 300 insurance companies. It's pretty simple. If a single entity does represent everybody, it becomes the "purchasing agent" by which all firms and individuals that want to offer some kind of care must go through. If that purchasing agent is also non-profit or is government run, then that entity does not tack on a profit mark-up on the costs of representing everybody and negotiating for everybody, and it would not have a desire to deny money to care for people simply because it wants bigger profit margins at the end of the year.

If a firm does not agree to the purchasing agent's terms, then the agent will simply find somebody else who will meet the demands, and then that firm will be the one receiving business from this entity. That is achieving economies of scale as far as bargaining power goes. The US health care system is terribly fragmented, full of costly duplication of activities as well as lack of standardization of exactly what a health care plan covers and does not cover. It is confusing, frustrating, and ultimately immoral if it leads to people being denied care if for no other reason than that they cost to much to cover, are too old, or have "pre-existing conditions" like a person who comes from a family with a history of cancer or heart disease. "Barbaric" is another word that could describe our system.

[Enthusiast]

77. +1, Selatius. Nice. nt

[glitch]

24. Thank you jgraz, K & R nt

[dysfunctional press]

31. the right-wing corporate position does NOT include a public option.,,

get your "facts" straight.

[jgraz]

34. Sorry, but the so-called "public option" is the equivalent of school vouchers

Get your "concepts" straight.

[BzaDem]

49. That is such BS.

The poster's statement,

"the right-wing corporate position does NOT include a public option"

is a statement of fact. It is not open for debate. Your school voucher argument is pretty lame. According to that argument, conservatives are in favor of socialized medicine because they are also in favor of public fire departments. Just because you can start talking about a completely unrelated issue doesn't mean the above quoted statement is any less true or indisputable.

[jgraz]

54. Wow, "BS"... "bizarro-world"... you're quite the erudite debater

(Since you probably need to be told this, I was being sarcastic)

[mwooldri]

32. In which case I'm a left wing loonie....

I want single payer. I want the hospitals and clinics nationalized and brought under the control of the single payer system. I want no deductibles, no co-pays - especially on prescription drugs. I want dental, vision and the full health plan, not just the basics. I also want mandatory annual free medical physicals and screenings for every individual, and a huge investment into encouraging physical fitness and better diets (nutritionist visits, ensuring communities have access to fresh food, encouraging the building of municipal swimming pools, athletic facilities and gyms).

Got that?

[jgraz]

35. You and me both, comrade.

[incapsulated]

42. But not the profitable one for politicians

So we are fucked.

[Catshrink]

45. amen!

[Dragonfli]

46. Why yes, It most Certainly Is!! Thank you for pointing that out to the less observant!

[robinlynne]

48. right on. right on!

[BzaDem]

50. Maybe in your bizarro-world.

Most people probably stopped reading your post when you claimed that the public option is the right-wing position. I understand that attempting to move the universe of debate towards one's own opinions can sometimes be an effective subtle arguing tactic, but the keyword there is "subtle." When you just come out and blatently say what you are doing, all it does is cause people to laugh.

This is not to say that it is necessarily a bad idea. But I believe the best way to achieve good ideas is to live in the reality that we are in, and not put our fingers in our ears and pretend that we live in some alternate reality. Understanding what is the actual centrist position/liberal position/conservative position (as opposed to your characterization of those positions) helps one argue more effectively to the people that your idea is the best idea.

[jgraz]

51. I see the propaganda still works on some folks

I bet you've got great health insurance, don't you?

[kenfrequed]

92. Nonsense.

Absolute nonsense. Politics is war and negotiation and poker.

If you want to leave it to the right wing and the DLC to determine where the center is, then the nation will always be right of center. The DLC themselves are economically slightly right of center with the republicans being total right win lunatics. For a liberal democrat to accept this seems like a recipe for total abject failure.

This is particularly galling when you compare it to where people are ON THE ISSUES. Merely chanting "moderate, moderate, moderate" does not mean you can go as corporate as hell and still be acting in the spirit of the democratic party. Even if the poll only indicated that 49% of the population as wanting a public option there would probably be a bunch of people that would want more and a bunch of people that want less than that. But why stop at healthcare. Most Americans also favor:

Environmental protection that forces polluters to clean up their messes and that protects our air, drinking water, animal habitats, and wilderness.

Doing something serious and meaningful about the greenhouse effect.

Increased ability or protection in trying to form or join unions.

Legislation that considers peoples jobs over the religion of Nafta, Gatt, the WTO and other "free trade" fanatics.

Free or increased access to education for all Americans

Increased minimum wage

Increased usage of real green energy and a decrease of use and reliance on all fossil fuels.


---

Until the media stops using right wing dems as the spokesmen for the democratic party we will continue to see a false tilt in terms of where the center lies. So I agree with the original intent of the post.

[jgraz]

97. OK, I'm changing my answer to yours

:thumbsup:

[kenfrequed]

107. no problem

Your original post was largely correct in intent, strategy, and in getting far closer to the facts than the damned corporate media allows for. I think spinning back to the BS center right nonsense cheats us of support on the issues. Not to mention the fact it pumps up the right wing to provide cover for the right-leaning democrats and it empowers the republicans.

I find it utterly amazing that the DLC Democrats get so much of the press from the democratic side when they don't have the actual numbers in the party and are taking positions in opposition to the progressive consensus that the majority of Americans agree to on the issues.

I mean the largest sub-caucus in the House of Representatives is the progressive sub-caucus one would think members of that sub-caucus would get more air-time or face time with the press.

[HughMoran]

52. Show me just one example

:P

[jgraz]

53. Well played, sir.

:rofl:

[readmoreoften]

56. Thank you. +1000.

Left of Ayn Rand ain't left.

[dpbrown]

57. Fucking A right!

Single payer now!

[lonestarnot]

59. I'll take 10 of those please!

[farmboxer]

60. Europe can afford it. Norway can afford it, Canada

America is ranked #37-38 in health care. Why doesn't someone tell that to the damned Republicans and the near Republican Dems?! They want us to die in the street like rats, afterall, they get their money from the criminal drug companies, insurance companies.

[jgraz]

61. Not only can we afford it, we could probably pay for Norway and Canada

All we need to do is restore the pre-Reagan tax brackets.

[fascisthunter]

84. ding ding ding

[craigmatic]

62. I hate to say this but if Obama doesn't get at least the public option he's failed

he needs 50 votes in the senate and has 59 dems he ought to be able to get it. bush only got about a 50% win in 2000 then used fear to push America into a war that nobody wanted against an enemy that hadn't attacked us while only having 50 repubs in the senate. Obama has the public behind him by 72% for a plan that people obviously need and believe in and his party controls both houses of congress. If he doesn't get this done he's weak, ineffective, and doesn't deserve to get re-elected. Like I said it pains me to say that but it's just how I feel.

[Strong Atheist]

93. Belated Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[craigmatic]

108. thanks

[grantcart]

64. And the corallary is also true: The Republican support for the status quo is extreme far right

No other party, including the conservative parties in other countries, support it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/188

[cornermouse]

69. I have to ask.

What do you consider socialized medicine?

[jgraz]

90. The same thing most people consider socialized medicine

A full, government-run health *care* system, like the V.A. Healthcare providers' salaries are paid directly by the government with no private, for-profit industry involved.

[cornermouse]

94. I'll take one of those, please.

[Downwinder]

71. Where are Local Government entities in the Single Payer Fight?

The way I see it, their health care costs are already being paid by the tax payer and Single Payer Option would just move the costs off the local budget and put them on the Federal budget. Should be a boon/no-brainier for cash strapped local government and schools. So, where are the resolutions from Cities, Counties, and schools in support of the Single Payer Option?

[ProudDad]

100. The right-wing looney legislature of poor benighted Arizona

is busy putting a Constitutional amendment on the ballot that would make Single-payer ILLEGAL in Arizona!

We're turning into the Mississippi of the 21st Century...alas!

[Downwinder]

104. Ask then to issue euthanasia pills to those who can't get health care.

[nyc 4 Biden]

78. Can someone help me out with a question I have??

Wouldn't a single-payer health system save businesses (except healthcare related ones) in this country tons of money, because they wouldn't have to pay for their employees healthcare??

I would think the Repugnantcans would be in favor of that.

[Greyhound]

83. Only if you believe that the Republik party and their DLC3rdNewBlueDog counterparts

actually support businesses. They support BIG BUSINESS and the campaign contributions they bring, small business can go fuck off for all they care.

[pnwmom]

79. Who says anyone here is defending "what we have now"? n/t

[jgraz]

91. No one *here* is defending it, per se

(Though I bet with a little digging I could find a few posts in favor of it. )

I'm just not sure how many people realize what a radical, far-right system we have currently.

[kctim]

85. Do any of you actually know any moderate Dems or people on the right?

Know what they really believe and why?

Single-payer is NOT the centrist position. Hell, not even half of Americans support a public-option plan if they have to pay for it. Anybody on here know why or even care to know why? Or will it all be the same old juvenile "because they are evil" responses?

[AllyCat]

86. Thank you! That's exactly right!

We need to make a distinction to naysayers and undecideds that single-payer is NOT socialized medicine.

[Downwinder]

87. How many avoid driving on socialized highways? n/t

[slipslidingaway]

89. knr nt

[ProudDad]

96. Hey, CBO. Analyze this!!!

HR676 - United States National Health Care Act

http://www.pnhp.org/docs/nhi_bill_final1.pdf

Senate "plan": cost government $1,500,000,000 for 10 years
Dem House "Plan": cost government ????? trillion for 10 years

HR676: SAVE $3,000,000,000 (SAVE 3 TRILLION DOLLARS) over the next 10 years!!!

Which would you choose?

:shrug:

Slam dunk, ain't it?

[jgraz]

99. Hmmm ... for some reason, the CBO isn't analyzing single-payer benefits.

How conveeeeeenient.

[ProudDad]

101. I wonder if the Progressive Caucus

can ask them to cost it out...hmmm.

:hi:

[Captain Hilts]

103. Single payer is about insurance. Socialized medicine is about medical treatment. nt

[Better Believe It]

105. Insurance/Medical Industry are opposed to both Medicare for All and a strong public option