"Health Care Reform" Is Just Code For Keeping The FOR PROFIT Healthcare Industry Intact

[Orwellian_Ghost]

"Health care is a defining right in a democratic society."

- Congressman Dennis Kucinich

Enough talk already...

HR676

[cali]

1. We'll see.

We'll see what kind of sausage gets extruded in the end. I'm not hopeful.

[chelsea0011]

2. Nothing short of universal care is just a stop gap fix. This program

the Dems are selling lost me months ago.

[HamdenRice]

3. Well reasoned analysis

Not!

[Kid Dynamite]

5. Hey Hamden

Are you saying you support the current "pathway" that health care reform is on? That seems almost untenable to me.

[HamdenRice]

12. I know how legislation is made

We're in the middle of a political struggle. It's not like some force or another is single handedly guiding the legislation. It's a food fight. The lobbyists make moves trying to destroy, undermine and delay, and Kucinich miraculously manages to get state single payer in and Obama demands public option.

It's not that I can "support" the pathway, just that I recognize how politics is a struggle.

I do think Obama made a big strategic error at the beginning. According to news reports, the administration calculated that the reason Hillary's reform failed is that it appeared to come from the administration, rather than from Congress, which meant that politically the repugs could go after both it and Clinton and Congressional Democrats didn't defend it. Obama and his advisors felt it had to come from Congress.

But that means it had to go into the sausage factory.

I think the bill should have been drafted in Dept of HHS, and Obama should have submitted it to Congress, despite the political risk.

I guess one possible outcome is that we're going to get a terrible, stinky bill and Obama won't sign it and we start over knowing a bit more about what the over all structure will be. Or maybe the good guys will get a decent bill out. Who knows?

But even a relatively bad bill could reduce the power of the insurance companies so that it can be revisited in a few years and improved.

I just have no illusion that a Democratic administration with a Democratic administration has the power to get things done the way most DUers think they can. It has never worked that way.

[Kid Dynamite]

18. But nearly everyone disagrees with this

The consensus is that a bad bill will be passed and signed or the issue will be shelved for a longtime to come with no change at all and that there is no starting over because the very act of passing the bill will prohibit revisiting the issue in a few years. Also, "bad" by definition seems to revolve around NOT reducing the power of the insurance companies..and everyone is expecting a "bad" bill and some are hoping for the "preferrable" alternative of No Bill

Also, the very cynicism you are articulating seems to ensure that "improvements" are not on the table now or in a few years, at least not the way our political system operates currently

I guess what I am reading is ambivalence: you basically "know" that the result of this is going to be crap but you are so resigned you are saying "bring on the crap and hope".

So it seems strange to me that you are so vocal in shutting down anyone who is pushing for something other than crap. Yes it may be "naive" or "idealistic" but y'gotta admit..your idea ain't any better unless you think resignation is better than naivete.

[HamdenRice]

27. What makes you think that partial reform means it can't be fixed?That has never happened in history

No major social legislation in US history has ever simply been passed and not tinkered with later. I have no idea how this idea has been fixed in people's minds. Do you think the social security act has not been amended since the 1930s? Or the Civil Rights Act? Or the Clean Water Act? Does anyone think the passage of those imperfect initial laws prevented them from being amended? These major programs are tinkered with almost every year and overhauled regularly. Everyone actually does not disagree with my view.

Any improvement over the current system will save lives. I prefer to see lives saved. I'm not sure what the alternative is -- getting angry on a message board? Turning all your efforts against the Democrats out of disappointment -- which seems to be the mentality of a small mob here.

All social progress in the western democracies has been incremental. That said, the Obama administration's agenda is breathtaking compared to anything that's gone before it. Even if we get something like a conference committee blend of what's before the various committees now, that would be a staggering amount of positive change.

Just this morning, on Democracy Now, Amy Goodman and Dennis Kucinich were discussing how Canada did not adopt universal health care all at once, but in one province, where it was such a success that the rest of the country adopted it -- Kucinich's new strategy.

And I don't "shut down" anyone. I point out when people post false information (which is way too often), or illogical nonsense. Show me one post where I've tried to "shut down" a proponent, say, of universal health care. You can't.

It's a political struggle -- that's life.

Perhaps it's my own political background. I got involved in campus anti-apartheid activities in the 1970s. Then I got involved as a consultant to a broad consortium of American human rights organizations involved in helping anti-apartheid forces within South Africa in the 80s. Then I went to South Africa in the late 80s and worked for an anti-apartheid organization. South African activists took a very pragmatic long term view, that maybe they would win by 2000 (happily they were wrong). That didn't mean that they "supported" the apartheid government, just recognized the reality of its existence. Even with a 2/3 majority in Parliament, it took several years to get many social programs off the ground. So my background is having observed a political struggle over 20 years, while being schooled by people who had up to a half century of experience in that political struggle.

Unlike South Africans, who at the end of the day were at the fringes of the global system, we're in the belly of the beast. If you think that the forces arrayed against health care reform -- let alone ending militarized foreign policy or any of the other things on Obama's agenda -- are going to roll over and give us what we want just because Obama won the election and a majority, then you are basically not in touch with reality. Never happened. That's not cynical and it doesn't mean you give up. It means you think things through rationally, and support the good guys in the struggle.

What's most impressive about the Obama administration is that if successful, it will not only implement certain positive programs (health care reform) but fundamentally alter politics -- like a New Deal type durable Democratic majority, the permanent undermining of certain lobbies (insurance, pharma), and hence the possibility of further fundamental political change (campaign finance, party realignment).

I've spent a fair amount of my career actually trying to get stuff done, sometimes with governments. I spent about 3 years helping a third world country implement land reform, water pollution control and land use planning -- and there wasn't even any effective political opposition to those initiatives.

I just find it laughable how some people think political change happens, and their emotional reactions when it isn't happening they way it was never possible for it to happen in the first place.

[Kid Dynamite]

28. I don't know how to answer that

you think that Social Security and Civil Rights were "incremental"?

ETA: I don't disagree with you that if the aim is to get as much as possible while keeping the private insurers happy then "incrementalism" is a great strategy. But that IS the crux of the disagreement here and the break is not a small fissure..its a canyon

The question I pose is: why should WE compromise with THEM? They're fighting for their interest (money, profits) we're fighting for our lives. A compromise by definition means that they make money and we save SOME lives. That is merely a negotiation as to how much each life lost is worth.

[HamdenRice]

29. No, and neither is the current healt care reform, as I made clear

But neither social security nor the civil rights act were complete when they were passed. The Civil Rights Act went through many additional amendments to deal with what was happening in the South and across the nation.

It didn't even have voting rights provisions or residential segregation provisions, which were passed later as the Voting Rights Act and Fair Housing Act. But passage of the Civil Rights Act did not prevent Congress from coming back a year later with the Voting Rights Act.

[Kid Dynamite]

31. Amendments are not really "revisting" in the sense you are using it here

And voting and housing rights are generally understood as part of "civil rights" in the first place.

[maryf]

49. Great post!!

Beautiful! why should we compromise with them?? health care is about saving people's lives, not about providing profit, thanks.

[ipaint]

67. The basics of social security never needed to be reformed.

amendments were added to include spouses and dependants of folks who die prematurely (1939) and in future years for cola and lowering the age (1956 + 1961).

But those amendments had nothing to do with providing all older americans some form of income in their old age. In fact the first check was issued in 1939 four years after passage.
Imagine if social security was made to compete in the market place with for profit companies who sold their own form of social security ins at inflated rates and it was mandated that the majority of americans had to purchase private ins.

We wouldn't have social security.



It's a good thing taiwan did not use your incremental approach to their health care reform.


"Taiwan started its health reform in the 1980s after experiencing two decades of economic growth.<3> In 1987, the government did away with the martial law which mobilized the governmental departments. The government set up a planning commission and looked abroad to study other countries’ health care systems. Taiwan looked at more than ten countries and combined their best qualities to form their own unique system. In 1995, Taiwan formed the National Health Insurance (NHI) model. NHI delivers universal coverage offered by a government-run insurer. The working population pays premiums split with their employers, others pay a flat rate with government help and the poor or veterans are fully subsidized. Taiwan’s citizens no longer have to worry about going bankrupt due to medical bills.<4>
Under this model, citizens have free range to choose hospitals and physicians without using a gatekeeper and do not have to worry about waiting lists. NHI offers a comprehensive benefit package that covers preventive medical services, prescription drugs, dental services, Chinese medicine, home nurse visits and many more. Working people do not have to worry about losing their jobs or changing jobs because they will not lose their insurance. Since NHI, the previously uninsured have increased their usage of medical services. Most preventive services are free such as annual checkups and maternal and child care. Regular office visits have co-payments as low as US $5 per visit. Co-payments are fixed and unvaried by the person’s income.<5>

By 2001, 97 percent of the population were enrolled in the program. Every enrollee has a Health IC smart card. This credit-card-size card only contains a kilobyte of memory that includes provider and patient profiles to identify and reduce Insurance Fraud, overcharges, duplication of services and tests.<7> The physician puts the card into a reader and the patient’s medical history and prescriptions come up on a computer screen. The insurer is billed the medical bill and it is automatically paid. Taiwan’s single-payer insurer monitors standards, usage and quality of treatment for diagnosis by requiring the providers to submit a full report every 24 hours. This improves quality of treatment and limits physicians from over prescribing medications as well as keeps patients from abusing the system.<4>

...Taiwan has the lowest administration cost in the world of 2 percent.<4> Before NHI, Taiwan spent 4.7 to 4.8 percent on health care. A year after NHI, it increased spending to 5.39 percent. Prior to NHI, the average annual rate of increase every year was around 13 percent. Now, the annual rate of increase is around 5 percent.<3> Taiwan spends a little over 6 percent in GDP and less than US $900 per person.<8>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Taiwan

They achieved in 6 years what we are hoping against all history to achieve in 20 or 30 if it happens at all. The failure of the proposed type of insurance exchange in every state that has attempted it doesn't bode to well for those who think faith and hope will get us there, eventually.

And the meme is already being spread on this board and other place online that the millions who are left uninsured after reform are those who refuse to buy insurance. In other words that's their choice not the fault of the reform.

[HamdenRice]

74. 1st check 4 years after passage -- so 2013 for public option is not a problem, right? nt

[ipaint]

77. You present yourself as being near the top of the curve for intelligence

What do you think?

[HamdenRice]

82. It was just a rhetorical question. With computers & Medicare infrastructure ...

it will be much quicker.

But the point is, that if we do get a strong public option it is going to take some time to offer it to the public.

It's important to recognize that, and hopefully the doom and gloom crowd won't spin conspiracy theories just because the bill that comes out of Congress allocates some time for the new bureaucracy to staff up.

And I don't present myself as being near the top of the intelligence curve at all.

[ipaint]

84. We are not getting a strong public option.

The insurance corporations are dropping beau coup bucks on congress for that reason.
They agreed 2 years ago to drop the pre existing condition nonsense in exchange for a mandate that millions be legally required to buy their overpriced product. Their own studies show they are in for a serious hit when the baby boomers move to medicare. For many the blow would be fatal. They desperately need us to keep them alive not the other way around.
The CBO in it's latest estimate said that the premiums offered by both the non profit government plan and the for profit insurance companies would have the same for profit market based cost.

"The new draft also includes provisions regarding a “public plan,” but those provisions did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections, largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates—and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans in the exchanges."

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/15/why-the-houses-public-option-is-better-than-kennedys-public-option/

Now why should the public plan not be allowed to compete with lower rates that reflect lower overhead and the fact it is a non profit with negotiating power? Oh that's right it won't have any negotiating power for a minimum 10 to many more years into the future. Enrollment is severely limited. I'm sure the insurance corps will happily allow reform on that too, right?

And where are people getting the facts to base the claim that the reform will be reformed. Real reform would have to lead to the elimination at least 90% of the for profit medical industry, leaving 10% for vanity crap for the wealthy. The same way too powerful to fight medical industry that has totally blocked out any mention of single payer, bought themselves a mandate that 45 million folks now and hundreds of million of new custmers in the future would be required to buy their product thereby saving their business model, shareholder profits and CEO multi million dollar salaries, built into reform a medical industry welfare program whereby folks too poor to pay full price would be subsidized with taxpayer money (in other words collectively we get to pay twice) and the very poor, the folks that have been neglected for years with the most need will be folded into another taxpayer government program, will now allow regular reform to phase them out of the picture.

Are people serious?

All of this is because the insurance companies rule. We don't need them. They are an added unnecessary useless expense. These people will never allow reform as those of us who see this as one giant scam can attest to. At a time when democrats are in power single payer is off the table even in order to use it as comparison to strengthen the proposed public option. No mention can be made of it. period. end of story.

Just the idea that people would even consider shackling themselves and others to the for profit insurance corporations by law is mindboggling to me.

If single payer can't even be mentioned now with democrats in control and the polls on our side good luck getting it mentioned in the future as we get into those mandated payments to the for profit vultures. They'll never give gravy train up. Wait until the repubs gain back some power and that mandate backed by fines starts getting more onerous at the request of the insurance companies. The for profit prison system must be salivating.

[John Q. Citizen]

85. Not if people could buy in if they wish. But they can't so that;'s a red herring. the problem

is that the CBO says that in ten years (2019) only 10 million tops would be in the so-called public option.

[ipaint]

4. How could it not be.

Committee chairman received $1.5 million from health-related companies


WASHINGTON - As liberal protesters marched outside, Sen. Max Baucus sat down inside a San Francisco mansion for a dinner of chicken cordon bleu and a discussion of landmark health-care legislation under consideration by his Senate Finance Committee.

At the table on May 26 were about 20 donors willing to fork over $10,000 or more to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, including executives of major insurance companies, hospitals and other health-care firms.

"Most people there had an agenda; they wanted the ear of a senator, and they got it," said Aaron Roland, a San Francisco health-care activist who paid half price to attend the gathering. "Money gets you in the door. The only thing the other side can do is march around and protest outside."

"...Baucus is a longtime centrist in the Democratic caucus, and his committee chairmanship has made him a key broker in the health-reform debate. Many former Baucus staff members, including two chiefs of staff, lobby on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry and other health-care players and have been closely involved in negotiations on the legislation."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32023391/ns/world_news-washington_post

[midnight]

6. HR676 NOW! We are finished with all the other nonsense.

[mmonk]

7. Of course. The arguments currently going on bear that out.

The bribes and punishment system of lobbying money does too. But I don't call it healthcare system but rather health insurance system.

[LWolf]

8. Yes. nt

[geek tragedy]

9. Purists would rather have people die from

lack of coverage than keep but dramatically improve a very flawed system. People who place ideology over humanity suck, and it's no coincidence that many Neocons were once far left purists like the OP.

[Kid Dynamite]

10. Define "dramatically improve"

Is that what you believe is happening here? If the OP or others could disprove that idea, what would you say then? Isn't a defense of the for-profit system also a form of ideology?

Further, almost every one agrees that people are going to die from lack of coverage under the new plan no matter WHAT it ends up being. Would it be fair to say that anti-purists such as yourself would rather have people die from lack of coverage than consider options other than vain attempts to "dramatically improve" a flawed system?

[PHIMG]

19. Improve the insurers bottom lines

50 million will be told.... buy the private insurers defective product or we're going to fine you half of what that would cost. that should be about 4 or 5 grand.

The government will fine you for not buying a defective product. think that over.

They did this in Mass. Obama's healthcare program is Romneycare plus the "public option" whatever that red herring winds up being (or if it even makes it thru.)

Obamacare = expensive, and full of corproate wealfare for the insurers.
Single Payer = pays for itself, eliminates private insurers, everyone in, everyone out.

You call call it "Purism" or you can call it, making the right choice.

I call it real reform.

[geek tragedy]

65. You live in fantasyland, oh Pure One.

Single payer ain't happening, and the dimwitted purists who are joining forces with Republicans are enemies like the Republicans.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Four out of five people currently uninsured...

... will get insurance, for the most part courtesy of expanded medicare. The rest of us will benefit from an insurance industry forced to compete with a public plan.

That's how I define "dramatically improve".

[Kid Dynamite]

68. Everything else equal

how would the FOR-PROFIT insurance industry compete with the NOT-FOR-PROFIT public plan unless the game was rigged in their favor?

Further, how do you arrive at the 80% expanded coverage stat? Not very many observers seem to share that optimistic assumption. The numbers I've seen suggest that perhaps 10 million more people will be insured under the likeliest forms of overhaul. That sure ain't 4/5s of the uninsured..

It seems you reveal something interesting when you say "the rest of us"..is this a dividing line? Are there two camps -- the insured and the uninsured -- who see things differently and have different agendas and will be subject to different outcomes?

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. There are nearly 50 million uninsured today.

Estimates project that there will be perhaps 8 million uninsured afterward. 8/50 = 16%

The first sentence is gibberish, but I'll wade in anyway. The same way that UPS competes with the Postal Service. The private entities must become as efficient as possible selling their product, and they won't be able to cherry pick and do other unconscionable practices to pad their bottom line AND the insurance exchange is the only place they will be able to peddle their wares.

I think what you're asking is "How can they do it successfully?" My answer is: I missed the part where that's my problem. I don't care if they fail and go broke, it's better for all of us that people migrate to the public plan, in as orderly a fashion as possible.

My intent was to say that people who already have insurance will benefit too. It is apparent from watching discussions here over the last couple of weeks, that there is a divide between the haves and have-nots, and both groups need to be heard.

[ipaint]

79. 9 million people will be in the public plan by 2019

The public plan needs to have a minimum of at least 20 million to begin to negotiate for better rates from the for profit medical industry, 9 million is not enough. In the CBO's latest report it was stated that the public insurance rates would not be much lower than the for profit rates so no savings was figure into the estimate.
The only way a public plan can begin to control for profit rates is to offer lower rates themselves.

That being said I have no doubt health reform will be passed. The insurance companies desperately need the shot in the arm of 45 million mandated customers to make up for the migration of baby boomers into medicare in the next ten years. This large subsidy (welfare) program of taxpayer money which will be siphoned into insurance companies to help people pay for over priced health insurance is basically a double payment on the part of taxpayers. One payment for overpriced insurance premiums and an additional collective payment to cover those who can't pay full price.

The netherlands has private for profit insurers. They are prohibited from rejecting applications for any reason. Their premiums must be within 5% of the premiums(reflecting bargaining or lower prices) of non profits providing insurance. Premiums for an individual - $142.00 a month. Oh and o-pays and deductibles are against the law. Lower income folks are subsidized.

The estimate of those who we are throwing under the bus to save others is 17 million, half of which are illegal immigrants. 8 and half million are american citizens with as much right as you to affordable access to healthcare. Tough luck for them, right?

[mmonk]

11. !8,000 people die annually in the United States due to lack of access

and proper medical preventative measures. Would it be better to call us smart rather than purists? Wouldn't it be better for you and other people who like to call people names provide evidence and figures for your position and have an intelligent conversation on the issue?

[area51]

39. Great point,

but up to 100,000 people are dying in the U.S. every year due to lack of healthcare. This is not a civilized nation, it's a barbaric one. Isn't it interesting how the congress never questions how we'll pay for two wars of choice, but somehow we have to search high and low for money to afford healthcare change? And if we were to transition to single-payer healthcare, we can even allow insurance companies to stay in business; like in first-world countries, they can sell supplemental insurance for things like face-lifts and tummy-tucks.

[mmonk]

41. Yes, it's the hypocrisy part of the cost question.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Yes, the current system sucks.

I'm not sure I get your point. The 8000 people who die because of lack of access are the uninsured. This bill fundamentally changes things.

[kenfrequed]

14. Bah

Throwing around the term 'purist' seems to be dodging the debate completely. Of course universal single payer is not OPENLY debated and your straw manning the single payer people and mischaracterizing them is probably about as close to rational debate as we get.


Do you really think that people backing single payer over some kind of mixed health insurance scheme have a specific coherant ideology that they are operating from? Or is this just a slap down to anything that sounds vaugely progressive.

You are aware that in the long run universal single payer is a hell of a lot cheaper, more efficient, and more humane than any for profit scheme. So, I really don't think you can state that thety are 'putting ideology over humanity.'

Also comparing us on the left to the Neocons is about as false an analogy as you can get to. Those of us of the lefty-left-McLefterson set opposed the Neocons early, often, and totally for completely humane and humanitarian reasons and not some oblique display of mindless identity/ideology "four legs good two legs bad" nonsense.

Most of us sort of thought that the facts were not in for Desert War II the revenge of Bush. We and that war is a terrible solution, and that the consequences would be an absurd mess. So we were the ones that were right and the pseudo-moderate, Bush-appeasers were either wrong, or worse they knew they were wrong and chose to kill a lot of people for purely political reasons. Might do for the DLC crowd to recall that once in awhile.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Why do you support discrimination?

You'd rather treat your neighbors as second class citizens than halt a dime of profit to the Insurance Industry. People who place political bs over human beings suck, and that is what you are doing.
What dramatic improvements? And for whom? Staight families only. You support bigoted law because it pays you and your allies to do so, the rest be damned.
The plan you support is written to place the anti-gay ideology of Democratic and Republican religionists more deeply into law. People will pay the price for that.

[debbierlus]

42. Mandatory Private Insurance is not a solution and 'purists' are people who want REAL reform

The health insurance industry through the Obama administration and Congress are FORCING the American people to spend 30% of total health care dollars on ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

Government administration using the medicare mode would be 3% of health care dollars.

I live in MA. We have mandatory insurance. Many families remain uncovered because the premiums are way too expensive (my sister lost her insurance and the cost for pooled health insurace for a family of three - 1,400 dollars a month).

The coverage is completely uneven with many just having catastrophic coverage.

Btw, the system will be completely financially insolvent in less then two years.

It has nothing to do with being a 'purist'. It has to do with facing reality. And, this profiteering health insurance system simply can't work.

Sorry, but its true.

[dflprincess]

44. +1

[Orwellian_Ghost]

54. Complete rubbish

The reform you are defending is in fact quite selective when it comes to whose humanity is considered of value. But I suppose you possess an ineology that considers some folks to be disposable.

Your attempt at a smear is so far removed from reality and it is you who possesses at this vbery moment on most every issue an ideology that is linked closely with the neocons. You religiouslt parrot reactionary right-wing talking points and defend a criminal political system that has swung so far to the right that you couldn't even recognize a tepid change if it leapt out of your local congresscritter, which it won't.

[PHIMG]

13. Private Health Insurance Must Go!

Bloody Hands.
Private Insurers make self-interested and arbitrary claim and coverage denials relegating many to premature death.

Restrict Choice.
Private Insurers restrict medical consumers’ choice in medical providers, inhibiting the proper function of the free market in medical services and enabling bad providers to thrive.

Adds Complexity.
Over 1,200 Private Insurance bureaucracies complicate and impede the practice of medicine with differing and often conflicting billing and administrative policies.

Drains Resources.
Nearly 30% of the healthcare spending funneled through health insurance middlemen is wasted on profit taking, underwriting, executive compensation and other unnecessary expense and waste.

Squanders Expertise.
Our current health care model diverts providers' attention from "how to heal" to "how to get compensated" by the shameless insurers.

Manipulates the Media.
Private Insurers exert a level of editorial control over the media via advertising purchases.

Corrupts Our Politics. Private Insurers manipulate elected officials with campaign donations, plum corporate jobs, and an army of lobbyists.

Brainwashes the Populace.
Private Insurers use paid media to lie directly to the populace, leveraging fear tactics and other highly sophisticated propaganda campaigns in order to evade accountability for the consequences of their actions and protect the status quo.

Restricts Debate.
Private Insurers’ media and political operatives dishonestly malign genuine reform as “politically infeasible” in order to limit the debate to industry-blessed half measures.

Bottom line: Private Health Insurance Must Go!

Reform proposals that do not remove private insurers from our healthcare system are morally unacceptable, fiscally irresponsible, and unsustainable even in the near term. These “mandate and subsidize” proposals are not well meaning attempts at realism by so-called centrists. They are a sinister attempt to marginalize the opportunity our country has at this defining moment to sideline the private insurers and move to a healthcare system that works – publicly funded and privately provided Medicare for all, as implemented in HR 676 – The United States National Health Care Act.

[truedelphi]

32. Excellent post. n/t

[SIMPLYB1980]

16. "Single Payer" is code for Failure, by purists who

want it their way or no way.

[PHIMG]

17. "purist" is code for those who write legislation that protects people...

Not campaign donations from insurance companies.

[Kid Dynamite]

20. To be fair, NOBODY writes such legislation

Against their religion..another reason for separation of Church and State..

Strange that the Almighty Dollar is worshipped so freely in the halls of Congress, no? And hes one of the most vengeful Gods on record..

[PHIMG]

22. John Conyers did, it's called HR-676 it has over 80 cosponsors

It is the most popular piece of legislation and the sold out Democratic leadership refused to debate it.

The right wingers would come out with the same exact arguments against single payer that they are bringing out against Obamacare and the public option.

The difference is.... you can say...this bill gives everyone TOP KNOTCH COVERAGE....everything is covered.

And you can say.... this bill PAYS FOR ITSELF.

Instead.... oh well maybe 10 million more people will be covered by the public option and oh by the way this bill will cost 1 TRILLION.

OBAMACARE is bad politics and bad policy. Reform for people who don't want government to work for the people. It's reform for people who want to protect the private insurance industry -- the very cause of our healthcare crisis.

Taiwan moved to single payer in 1995 and went from 57% coverage to 97% with no increase in costs except for inflation related increases.

Why can't we? Corruption. Plain and simple. Call me a "purist".

[Kid Dynamite]

24. Man thats true

but if Conyers was part of the "leadership" you can be sure he wouldn't be supporting HR 676..begs the question of what "sold out" means

That was my point, gotta love him for what hes doing but..

[PHIMG]

37. well in a sense Conyers is not pushing his bill; playing along with Obamacare

i go back and forth thinking that public option is either a bridge to single payer or is a scam to get progressives on board with a bad reform bill.

hopefully the glass is half full and once we get the first major healthcare bill done in 40 years the next one can happen in less time, opposition to reform is destroyed, and when the public option costs so much that single payer becomes absolutely necessary in order to realize the admin savings.

Keep hope alive. I do not think Single Payer advocates cannot derail Obamacare all we can do is get the blame when the blue dogs and thier allies the right wing derail it somehow.

[blindpig]

40. The glass is 1/2 empty

The 'public option' is doomed to disappoint all but the insurance industry.

As far as Conyers goes, I can't help but think that it is kabuki theater. He knows how the game works and that it would eventually be shelved or defeated. It is a matter of saving face, maintaining the illusion that somebody is on the people's side.

Yeah, the next time and the next time and the next time, a dog chasing it's tail.

[Kid Dynamite]

46. Nah, Conyers is one of the good guys

but at the same time political maneuvering is what it is, too

[maryf]

50. Public should not be the option...

Fining people because they don't buy into a mandated plan? A plan that is designed to save the for profit industry? taxing workers bennies? STILL Not covering everybody which will mean STILL having deaths due to lack of health care coverage??? Its a bad reform scam, stop waffling...

[Kid Dynamite]

51. Opposition to reform will be redoubled not destroyed

since any sort of public option is doomed to be a calamitous failure..Obamacare..Hillarycare..

[superduperfarleft]

53. +1. Finally someone else said it. n/t

[kenfrequed]

21. Uhm 'Single payer'

Is a term that has been around a lot longer than the current round of healthcare debates. Single payer is what has already been proven to actually work.

Whereas these latest mendacious, machiavellian, pseudo-moderate, meanderings are merely the mutterings of pro-profit, anti-healthcare insurance company mafiosos trying to retain their vig.


Single payer It is not a 'code word' for anything.

As a matter of fact you are misappropriating a bit of language to support whatever it is you are trying to say. When you use the the term 'code word' you sort of have to have a substituted phrase of intent. Do you think that us progressives want everyone to have health care? Yes or No.


Unless you TRULY believe that progressives that back single-payer universal actually hate healthcare and want everyone to die. In which case Frank Luntz and the republican party have a job opening for you.

[SIMPLYB1980]

23. I believe those that argue for single payer and against

a public option are making it harder to get reform. Along with the Conservative Democrats baulking at the cost. Both are wrong EMO.

Single payer would have delivered a death blow to reform before it could even be discussed.

[ipaint]

25. Well with that logic

You would think insurance companies would have kept it front and center instead of spreading the meme "It's impossible!" to insure it's invisibility.

[blindpig]

26. Then 'reform' ain't worth a damn.

Mandated for profit insurance, you're good with that?

It's a fuckin' abomination.

[SIMPLYB1980]

30. I don't see it as you describe.

Matter of fact I hear the same reasons against the public option from the local Teabaggers.

[TBF]

35. All I can say to that is perhaps your teabaggers are more enlightened

than the ones around here. It's amazing in this thread to see so many democrats against health insurance for all (single-payer), and instead in the pockets of the insurance companies. I find this truly embarrassing.

Personally my vote is to simply eliminate the age restrictions on medicare. Open it up to everyone, cut defense spending to pay for it. Leave Honduras, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan & Afghanistan alone. We stop killing people worldwide, and start giving our own citizens health care.

Health care rather than killing. A novel concept.

[kenfrequed]

38. That is absurd

Ok, so you want a decent, well funded, and wide open public option to pass in congress.... right?

So if you are going to try to get that through what strategy do you use?

1)
Push a weak and ineffectual public option that is designed to clean up after the insurance companies and pay subsidies to them to cover profit losses. Make it as weak and exlusionary and complex as possible with arcane switches and force tons of paperwork for patients to apply for the public option and then force them to periodically reapply in an effort to push them to private insurance plans and penalize them if they go without.

Now bring in the insurance comapanies and let them rewrite legislation to their benefit?

Or...


2)
Push really hard on a universal single payer decrying the profit margins of the insurance companies and make it clear that you are going to get tough on them. Cover everyone. No exceptions. Then, if it looks bad tell the insurance companies the only life raft is for them to shut the hell up while you pass the cleanest public option available and challenge the insurance companies stating that if they cannot provide proper coverage that they will lose business.



Which route to proper public option sounds more credible, using it as a starting point and then compromising the hell out of it, or starting from universal and compromising on a public option?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

52. So

you are in favor of FOR PROFIT health care.

Are you in any doubt as to how the insurance companies, Big Pharma et al are going to control this "reform?"

[Kid Dynamite]

71. Reformation doesn't equal accomodation

and acquiesence -- that seems to be the confusion you're laboring under

[redqueen]

33. Did Kucinich state he was opposed to the House bill? (nt)

[Echo In Light]

34. Like everything about the U.S. it boils down to Perception Management.

[Uncle Joe]

36. In regards to the nation's health-care there is no logical reason that a

for profit "health" insurance industry should exist, they can only damage health care.

Covering the American People against illness should be a non-profit government task.

I view it as national security issue with 18,000+ Americans dying every year because some believe that others; having nothing to do with health care, should profit from the American Peoples' illness and injury, this is immoral, dysfunctional and illogical.

I also believe any political "leader (s);" supporting a for profit "health" insurance industry have abandoned their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, because they're not representing the best interests of the American People.

[bemildred]

43. They should call it "Health Care Deform", that would be more correct. nt

[berni_mccoy]

45. Kucinich is supporting HR3200.

[maryf]

47. No really, Kucinich is a co-sponsor of HR676

actually helped author it. He wrote an amendment to HR 3200 to allow for single payer in the states should it pass...now really a supporter of HR 3200...

[redqueen]

59. Did you mean "not really"? Either way, Kucinich is supporting it.

Just because he'd rather have the perfect, doesn't mean he's so stupid he'd work against the good.

[maryf]

60. I meant not really

and believe it was mainly to get the amendment in to protect us if it does go through...

[redqueen]

62. Now that his amendment is in, he can drop his support...

and direct his supporters to call and suggets their lawmakers vote against the reform bill.

Has he done that?

[maryf]

81. I don't know, do you?

I'm not that concerned about Kucinich's stand here, but single payer has been a pet issue of his for a long time...

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. He has not signed on as a cosponsor:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03200:@@@P

[eridani]

72. That's because it has his ERISA single payer amendment in it n/t

[maryf]

48. Amen, amen, amen...

K&R of course. Rally July 30th for Medicare's 44th anniversary and Single Payer health care...Health care for People not for Profit!!! link on edit: http://www.healthcare-now.org

[thelordofhell]

55. This is not about "insurance care", it's about "health care"

To hell with insurance companies obscene profits off the sick.

[Odin2005]

58. "WHAAAH! If I don't get perfection I'm gonna take my ball and go home. SO THERE!!!"

This ridiculous assertion that if we don't get a full Single-Payer system now we will never get it is just that, assertion with no basis in fact.

[maryf]

61. I don't want to see further deaths due to lack of health care myself...

and nothing that doesn't guaranteed that will get my support...

[ipaint]

64. And the facts that lead people to believe

the for profit medical industry will allow future reforms that threaten their profit margins and eventually their very existence are where?

[superduperfarleft]

66. Stick to biology, college boy. Let the grown ups handle the real world. n/t

[TBF]

69. Maybe you'd better think about that silly statement when you're counting

on leftists votes in 2012. We don't have to vote. Keep that in mind.

[Odin2005]

75. And that's how many votes compared to the surge of center-left 20-something voters?

The far left never liked Obama, anyway.

[TBF]

80. Fair enough, but look at what we're dealing with here.

Obama has a real chance here to make some changes. He's got high approval ratings, people are giving him the benefit of the doubt after the disaster of the Bush presidency. I'd like to see him put people before corporate profit and I think people would respond very favorably to that. Health care could be his legacy, as the New Deal was for FDR. I hate to see him waste this opportunity, and know how many people are going to suffer because he didn't take the higher road.

[Kid Dynamite]

70. The ridiculous assertion that if we settle for something else now

that single payer might be on the table later also seems a bit..ridiculous. Why, pray tell, is it not on the table now? If its because of political expediencies, how do you propose to change that in the future? Won't you simply have to *assert* that it *might* change?

Why would it upset you that some people might not settle for the same table scraps that you're willing to call a feast? Its not as though you're alone in your acquiesence and its not as though the "opposition" has been given any say or even hearing in the matter.

[Odin2005]

76. It's called you need to get off your rear and primary some Blue Dogs.

[Kid Dynamite]

78. Thats what you said last election, and the one before and

How much longer is the same carping gonna cut it? Its called 'Do legislators represent their "constituents" or not?' At the moment the answer is NO and that is ACROSS THE BOARD. Blue Dogs my ass..as if Obama is taking the lead on the issue and being "held back". Obama's plan is crap and we both know it, only you seen to like the smell.

How many Blue Dogs have been "primary-ed" to date anyway? And by that I mean actually LOST in the primary. I don't think the 'ol "ineffectual primary challenge" is gonna bring 'em around..

And failing that, what? Taunt them a second time?

[Naturyl]

83. Rec'd

Nothing but single-payer is acceptable. Period.

[ProSense]

86. Kucinich on health care reform: "this is a stronger bill that will protect Americans"

Kucinich on health care reform: "this is a stronger bill that will protect Americans"

Sorry to interrupt the denial in progress.

[blindpig]

87. kick n/t