For those of you who seem to have forgotten. Obama never promised single-payer.

[pnwmom]

That was Kucinich, and you saw how far he got with that.

But Obama appears to have taken a large step forward, since it now appears that he's embracing the idea of allowing people to opt into Medicare. Medicare will be more cost effective than private insurers, who will probably lose increasing numbers of their customers to the more economical alternative. Private insurers who can't compete will disappear.

So instead of going into a frenzy criticizing him for not pushing single-payer, why not support him in going the direction he's already leaning -- opening up Medicare? In the long run, it will amount to the same thing. And in the short run, it will take care of everyone who needs insurance.

[msongs]

1. maybe he knows where his bread is dollared? nt

[FrenchieCat]

46. Barack Obama didn't prosper by taking money from that sector....

but I have noticed that you have been against Barack Obama from way before day one!

[firedupdem]

2. Obama isn't going to do anything to hurt the middle class, or the

disadvantaged. Opening up medicare is probably the way he will go. He knows where he came from and who he represents.

[Captain Hilts]

4. I agree. But it helps us to start this policy debate from a position further left. nt

[LiberalFighter]

43. I agree! And start with the opt-in Medicare.

It will give everyone time to adjust. Instead of flooding the health care segment of society do it in stages.

The administration of the program by the government whether by region or federal needs to be done in stages so they can easier manage the employees needed. Likewise, the flow of employees from private to public sector needs to be in stages so there are fewer gaps.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. I think the opt-in may be the only way to get there from here.

And yes, his apparent reluctance to speak up for S-P is one of the main reasons I didn't sign on with him until it was down to the last 2.

I must say I have great hopes for the opt-in to evolve rather quickly into S-P for all but the few wealthy who want to hang onto private plans and private supplements, price-be-damned, as is the case in Germany.

[midnight]

5. I think some of the frenzy is about the closed session dealing with healthcare options.

If a REPUBLICAN administration had announced a “Healthcare Reform Summit”, inviting representatives of healthcare corporate interests, but simultaneously

(1)snubbing physician and nursing advocates of Single Payer healthcare-for-all, and

(2) hiring a well connected White House adviser who advocates PRIVATIZING MEDICARE

how would we react?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5180499&mesg_id=5180499

[bluethruandthru]

6. That's it exactly.

Obama's unwillingness to even listen to single payer advocates is what is so frustrating. He's always said he wants to hear from all sides of various issues...but not this one. At some point, you have to wonder why.

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. You forgot (3)

Deliberately snubbing the best possible choice for HHS Secretary, someone who was both a doctor and a former governor, in favor of a political crony friendly to the insurance industry.

[polichick]

10. Yep - that really bugs me!

[biopowertoday]

8. Health Care Industry in SECRET Talks to Shape Policy****

THEY were not only shut of the summit but look who has been in this Kennedy plan for months now---!!


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20health....


February 20, 2009
Health Care Industry in Talks to Shape Policy
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — Since last fall, many of the leading figures in the nation’s long-running health care debate have been meeting secretly in a Senate hearing room. Now, with the blessing of the Senate’s leading proponent of universal health insurance, Edward M. Kennedy, they appear to be inching toward a consensus that could reshape the debate.

Many of the parties, from big insurance companies to lobbyists for consumers, doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, are embracing the idea that comprehensive health care legislation should include a requirement that every American carry insurance.

.........
The talks, which are taking place behind closed doors, are unusual. Lobbyists for a wide range of interest groups — some of which were involved in defeating national health legislation in 1993-4 — are meeting with the staff of Mr. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, in a search for common ground.

.................

While President Obama is not directly represented in the talks, the White House has been kept informed and is encouraging the Senate effort as a way to get the ball rolling on health legislation.

...............

“While there was some diversity of views,” it said, “the sense of the room is that an individual obligation to purchase insurance should be part of reform if that obligation is coupled with effective mechanisms to make coverage meaningful and affordable.”

The ideas discussed include a proposal to penalize people who fail to comply with the “individual obligation” to have insurance.

......................................

[bluethruandthru]

12. Every American shouldn't have to buy health insurance.

Every American should have guaranteed health CARE for life. We don't want universal health insurance...we want universal health CARE. There's a big difference and alot of politicians...including Obama seem to confuse the two.
What really angers me is the talk of government subsidies to help individuals buy their health insurance from private companies!

[biopowertoday]

13. Yes, it looks like we will be paying that those substities ALSO!!. Dems have

an open door to go fun steam for health CARE for all. But it seems the insurance and pharm industries are the bosses. damm.

[pnwmom]

16. It doesn't say "buy insurance." It says "carry insurance."

If you're allowed to opt into Medicare, then you will be carrying insurance. Do you have a problem with that?

[TBF]

19. Do we have any indication of what "carry" means? Does "carry" mean it is fully

funded by taxpayers, does it mean there are co-pays? How do you know it doesn't mean "buy"? I'd like to see their definition of the terms because it makes all the difference.

[pnwmom]

23. For people who can afford it, do you have a problem with co-pays?

I pay co-pays now that I would rather pay to Medicare -- especially if that meant that people without the means could finally have access.

[dflprincess]

28. Who decides who can afford it?

Government income limits for programs are always out of touch with the real world.

[bluethruandthru]

21. I'm not a fan of "insurance" when it comes to health care.

I'm worried that with Obama allowing insurance lobbyists so much involvement in this process that Medicare will somehow become the ugly sister of the choices...with only bare bones care provided for.
I just find it obscene that for-profit companies make all of our health care decisions..when their sole purpose is to deny care and make money. I'm sad that our President is so concerned about their needs.

[pnwmom]

26. Medicare is considered to be insurance. I don't have a problem with the word per se. n/t

[bluethruandthru]

30. I guess I do have a problem with it because I truly feel

that healthcare should be the right of all Americans. Not an 80/20 plan or a 70/30 plan or deductibles or limits on which doctors or hospitals you can use. I don't like having to postpone my yearly mammogram or blood tests or other procedures because I can't afford the 20 percent on top of my extremely high deductible! And I have what many would consider great "insurance". I think we all should be able to get care or testing or medications or whatever...whenever our doctor decides..without ever worrying about how much it will cost.
Smarter folks than me can figure out how to pay for it through payroll deductions on every american (full or part time) and whatever else is necessary. You could take an additional five thousand dollars from my yearly salary to pay for Universal, Single Payer and I'd still be getting more and better services than I have now....for less than I pay for premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc.

[leftstreet]

32. **^^Everybody should read this post^^**

:thumbsup:

[bluethruandthru]

33. Thank you. n/t

[pnwmom]

47. Medicare is insurance that allows people to choose their own doctors.

Looking at the benefits my mother and mother-in-law get, it looks like a plan most of us would be happy to have.

[Enthusiast]

54. +1, bluethru

We need a voice, an advocate.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Medicare is not free

even to the elderly and disabled. Premiums, co-pays, deductables, the works. Those on Medicare 'buy insurance' each and every month. With money.

[TBF]

17. I don't think they're confused. They know exactly what they're doing. n/t

[bluethruandthru]

24. Sad, but true. n/t

[Enthusiast]

53. They confuse the two on purpose.

All the insurance industry does is administrate the plan and take profit. They do not contribute a thing to actual 'healthcare'. It amounts to free money for the insurance industry. I think this whole deal sucks.

[pnwmom]

14. Since he's NOT a Rethug, and since he's been on our side so far,

I'm reserving judgment for now.

I see no reason to attack him as if he were Bush.

[TBF]

29. Nobody is attacking anybody. You are on a political discussion board

and you brought up an issue. It's being discussed. Just because I don't agree with Obama on something doesn't mean I'm "attacking" him.

We are still in America aren't we?

[biopowertoday]

9. SEE post 8. taking single payer off the table is WRONG!!...

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

11. Quite frankly, I'm not married to any particular system as long as it reduces

costs, improves treatment coverage and covers more people. The system now, ever for those who have decent insurance is atrocious and is way over-priced.

[leftofthedial]

15. what difference does it make what he promised?

:shrug:

he wants to fix the problem by rewarding those who broke it. (It's really almost exactly like his policy toward the banks.)

I'm not going to support him now just because he's always been in the pockets of the insurance companies. Ferfucksake!

[pnwmom]

18. He's not rewarding them by opening up Medicare to compete with them.

They're not thrilled with that, I'm sure.

[leftofthedial]

25. define "compete" in the context of a "free market"

Say bye-bye to Medicare.

[pnwmom]

27. Medicare will be more cost effective, due to its ability to negotiate price reductions

and the fact that it won't have to build in a profit-margin.

Say bye-bye to private insurers.

[dflprincess]

31. When the private insurers start screaming about Obama's plan

then we'll know he's on the right track. So far, they haven't been doing any complaining and that makes me very skeptical that we're going to see any real reform.

[Jakes Progress]

38. Finally, someone who knows the truth.

If you see photo ops with pharma and insurance fat cats smiling, you know your are getting screwed.

When they start organizing to go on the Sunday programs and get Rush behind them and start ghost wirting WaPol editorials against what Obama wants, then you know that we are on the right track.

All the pictures in the news now make me hope they wear a condom.

[leftstreet]

44. Get ready for the Geico-ing of American healthcare

[Enthusiast]

55. Agree here, dflprincess. nt

[leftofthedial]

64. yeah, that's the way the "free market" has worked...

not.

More likely, private insurance companies will collude to drive Medicare out of business and will lobby incessantly to weaken its ability to compete.

Judging from the number of insurance lobbyists helping to draft Obama's "plan," that lobbying effort will be extremely successful.

[dionysus]

60. funny, i don't think you ever supported him...

:rofl:

[TBF]

20. Do you have a cite for him saying he is opening up medicare? I have not seen it.

[leftstreet]

22. When has he said he'd open up Medicare?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

34. He hasn't said it. But people involved in the discussions are saying that's

where this is heading.

[paulk]

35. well, yeah

but I don't understand why that means he shouldn't be pushed toward it...

or that he shouldn't be criticized for taking it completely off the table.

[mmonk]

36. I've been counting the years to when I can get on medicare

and not have to spend such an outrageous amount for insurance. Now there is talk about screwing around with it in the privatization arena? I'd rather he do nothing and not screw it up for me. I'm tired of spending all my money so I can be screwed by a government that cares more about the corporate lobby than the people because they will always be taken care of.

[Canuckistanian]

37. I remember the fights about it here

Obama's healthcare plan was similar to Clinton's during the primaries.
And NEITHER of them mentioned single-payer.

[Jakes Progress]

39. Just because he didn't promise to do the right thing

doesn't mean he can't do it anyway.

[TankLV]

40. We know - Hillary did...

but I support OUR President now...

give him time - it's only been FIVE FUCKING WEEKS!!!

[Cleita]

42. I support him to so I don't want him to make what will be a huge mistake

early in his Presidency. Leaving people out of a discussion who could bring extra knowledge and gravitas to this summit is a HUGE mistake.

[Ken Burch]

49. There's no conflict between "giving him time" and wanting single-payer to be in the discussion

Since they'll be people in the summit attacking the single-payer idea, what possible harm can it do to Our President or the hopes for his healthcare plan to let there be at least ONE person in the room defending and explaining single payer?

How can this possibly be threatening or dangerous?

[Ken Burch]

67. In fairness, HRC didn't promise single-payer either

And she may have killed the chances for any health care plan in the 90's by deliberately ruling it out as an option then and by refusing at the time to make real grassroots alliances with progressive groups(because THAT "Democratic" administration always preferred to lose on unpopular centrist ideas than win with popular progressive ones or in alliances with those to its left).

[Cleita]

41. No he didn't, but we didn't think he would leave out single payer advocates

and experts at what is supposed to be a meeting of everyone to discuss the problem and hammer out a probable health care plan. Including all the insurers, HMOs and big PhRMA and leaving out everyone else seems like the plan has already been hatched, by those same insurers, and no one else need put their two cents in. Incidentally, they are the same goons who brought us Medicare Part D and that has not worked out well at all, not for senior citizens and not for everyone else who needs drugs who even aren't on Medicare. It hasn't cut the costs but put an additional burden on Medicare for Wall Street profits. Also, the plan they want to bring to the nation is already not working well in Massachusetts, Tennessee and Oregon. These are petri dishes that tell us where not to go, yet they are going there because they won't listen to anyone else.

[vaberella]

48. Remember what he said during the primaries

He would talk to the health insurance companies to lower the cost. I don't see his closed door meetings as anything important in the way of single payer. He always said he'd throw in other options and alternatives but he said quite often and specifically that he would meet with these people.

I think people just want to be all indignant when they don't have a clue as to how Obama will act or react to the news and his decisions. I want to hear eventually what he has to say and if all this hoopla, which doesn't at all seem as though he's going against his campaign promise, is warranted.

[Zavulon]

45. As someone who doesn't support single-payer, I already support Obama on this. (NT)

[Ken Burch]

50. You support him on having no one who backs single-payer in the summit?

Why favor censorship?

It's only people like Rush that shouldn't be in that room. People to Obama's left shouldn't be excluded. No one on the left is the enemy.

[JTFrog]

52. Except that you're wrong and they have not been excluded. n/t

[Zavulon]

65. Yes.

I'm doing the same thing you're doing - I'm drawing the line where I want to see it drawn. If censorship is your big worry, you should have no have no problem with Rush being in that room, but you do - so your line is drawn. Mine is drawn at single-payer.

Obama isn't including Rush because Rush would spend a lot of time trying to convince Obama of something he doesn't buy into, and therefore it would be a big waste of time. Same, apparently, with someone who backs single-payer. Obama is working with people who support his idea of what needs to be done, not inviting people to a start-from-scratch strategy session, because he wants to enact some sort of change quickly. Having someone in there to extol the virtues of single-payer when Obama has already heard the sales pitch and didn't buy will only slow things down - so yes, I support him having nobody who supports single-payer at the summit.

[Two Americas]

51. the public supports single payer

Why would any Democrat argue against single payer? That is a mystery to me. Don't we already have a party that is opposed to single payer? Do we really need two?

And what does Kucinich have to do with anything?

Strange times.

[Enthusiast]

57. No mystery.

The insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry have been framing the healthcare discussion for years. It appears we will continue to prop up their cash cow with Obama as president. These are some powerful operators. Look at the huge investment they have made in misinformation against socialized medicine. Every right wing idiot can repeat the Canadian horror stories word for word.

[Two Americas]

59. no surprise there

What I can't understand is why people here would argue against single payer.

[Zavulon]

66. I'll tell you why.

The federal government can't even handle health care for its military. It is simply not up to the responsibility of handling it for over 300 million people.

Once you go single-payer, you don't go back. This might not bother me is I had a guarantee that Republicans would never hold the White House again or a Capitol Hill majority again, but I don't. Imagine that you and I, like everyone in the country, now depend on a single-payer plan, when suddenly - say, 2016 or so - the same party which told schoolchildren that ketchup was a vegetable at lunchtime scores big on Election Day, decides to cut services, or simply fails to add services in accordance with the rate they're needed. Then both you and I come down with something serious but are told that treatment for us isn't cost-effective - there isn't enough money to help us, even though there is plenty for new weaponry and tax breaks for yacht owners.

Sorry, no sale here. The roll of the dice is too risky, and I don't trust the steward (the federal government) even when our side pulls the reins. I have read dozens (hundreds, probably) of arguments in favor of single-payer, and not one of them has me willing to trust a behemoth such as the federal government with a responsibility this big. Also, if we cross that road, it's only a matter of time before the government assigns us doctors and tells us what we can and can't eat in order to be eligible for health care.

Lastly, for anyone who plans to respond to this with a "but this proposal or that one provides for this or that..." or that my last sentence in the last paragraph is absurd, remember Social Security. Originally, it was only a 2% tax on the uber-rich, and I've seen the old pamphlets explaining that "this is all you will EVER pay." Now FICA withholding is a wide-reaching regressive assfucking for the poor, especially considering how little the rich put into it percentage-wise, and taxes will have to go up to support it while benefits will almost certainly be reduced because the federal government pissed away Social Security surplus finds on bullshit that would have had people in jail if the same were done in the private sector. If there is even a chance that health care could be similarly warped by the federal government (especially if the Repugs ever rule again), and there is, it's too big of a chance for me to support.

[Two Americas]

68. that is true of everything

May as well fold tents and go home. If we are going to base what we advocate on the fear of a future Republican administration and what they might do, we have completely surrendered. Your argument could have been used against Social Security when it was first proposed, against public education, against every progressive initiative. But maybe you are opposed to Social Security? Hard to tell.

[Zavulon]

69. In its current form? I am.

Collection age versus the average life expectancy for a black male? Social Security is currently a major screwing for minorities and the poor who don't have the proper health care to live long enough to get their money back. Meanwhile, as a percentage the rich chip in very little but usually live long enough to get back every cent. I also hate the fact that while a married guy can die and his wife can collect, if I die the government can keep every cent. Why can't I will it to a charity I think would use the money better, or even to a friend who I think will eventually get screwed by the system?

The government pissed away so much in surplus money that tax increases and benefit reductions are inevitable. I wish the individuals who did that could be imprisoned for forcing us into this program and then wasting our money. Before the government were to take on a responsibility as big as single-payer, I'd want to see SS reformed to a fair system with a minimum of waste. Until it can, I will never support single-payer because the way the government has fucked up SS and consistently failed to address the problem in ways other than just charging us more should leave no reasonable person thinking it can handle health care without fucking up that, too.

I can live without my Social Security if necessary, so while I detest the fact that the program has become such a screwing for so many, I can live without the severely reduced benefits I'll eventually qualify for after paying even higher taxes for them. I can NOT, however, live without proper health care, and I do not trust our government to handle it. Period.

[Two Americas]

70. good point there

"Social Security is currently a major screwing for minorities and the poor who don't have the proper health care to live long enough to get their money back. Meanwhile, as a percentage the rich chip in very little but usually live long enough to get back every cent."

Good point. Thanks.

[and-justice-for-all]

56. Does not matter what he promised...

it is a matter of what WE need.

[Vinca]

58. This is what I think will happen:

I'm betting Obama will follow John Edwards' plan and allow insurance companies to continue to sell their crappy, expensive policies, but at the same time open Medicare up as an alternative for everyone. Over time attrition will give us single payer.

[bunkerbuster1]

62. Never promised, but here's what he said that has always given me hope:

from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html?pagewanted=all

"I have been entirely consistent in my position on health care. What I said, and I have said on the campaign trail this time, is if I were designing a system from scratch, I would set up a single-payer system because we could gain enormous efficiencies from it. Our medical care costs twice as much per capita as any other advanced nation."

On edit: This was during a debate, where Hillary tried, with some justification, to cast him as a flip-flopper on the issue. I felt his response was appropriate.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. The secret nature of the meetings

is just wrong. No two ways about it, this is not transparency. And unless you can show me the President speaking about 'opening up Medicare', then you are foisting as given a position that has yet to be taken at all. You are speaking about a rumor coming out of closed door industry heavy sessions. That is not the same as Obama saying he leans that way. Not at all.