Single-Payer Healthcare

[redqueen]

Poll question: Single-Payer Healthcare

Some around here have said the electorate isn't ready for single-payer. I don't know about that. Especially now that Sicko is making the rounds.

What do you think... is it too much to expect our candidates to ignore the insurance industry and take a stand for the ONLY sane solution to our health care crisis?

[Vincardog]

1. If they do not want to lead; what the f#ck are they running for?

[Sapere aude]

6. Just curious, is the new immigration bill a showing of leadership in your opinion?

So many people are saying the congress should listen to the people and not lead the people when it comes to immigration.

[Vincardog]

11. Leading the immigration bill undermines the will of the people.

Leading on the Health CARE issue is the Will of the American People.

Do you see any difference?

[Sapere aude]

18. Lead the will of the people? Cart before the horse I guess.

[damntexdem]

8. Oh, they want the lead -- that's why ...

they won't get the lead out on this issue. ;-)

[dkofos]

10. To enrich their bank accounts

[LSK]

2. its all about the votes in Congress

Right now we dont have the votes. Nothing will pass. Can we get 60 Senators in 2008 and a Dem in the White House? Then we have a shot. If we dont get a filibuster proof majority, then a pure universal healthcare plan has no chance. However a plan similar to Edwards or what Hillary tried in the 90s might have a chance of passing with the help of some moderate Repukes.

[dkofos]

12. That still involves the insurance co. No thanks

[sandnsea]

3. How bizarre

You begin by pointing out that the electorate is not screaming for single payer - then create a poll about standing up to the insurance industry. Very weird.

[valerief]

5. Good one. Yeah, if you scream at rightwing media, do you make a sound? nt

[redqueen]

13. I didn't point that out... I said SOME around here say that.

FWIW, I don't agree.

Furthermore, I don't frickin care. As is pointed out above, congress is fully capable of leading on issues which end up with their benefactors wallets being fattened.

Let them do it for US for a change.

[sandnsea]

16. Then don't distort your agenda

You don't care what the electorate really thinks, you believe what you want and want to know how many agree with you. Why not just be honest about it.

[redqueen]

19. What? My "agenda" was to find out how many agree with me.

Defensive much?

[sandnsea]

22. Not about the electorate's view of single payer

You don't care about honest debate at all.

[redqueen]

24. What?

I don't personally care... as in I expect our politicians to LEAD.

I didn't say I didn't want to know other people's opinions.

Jesus.

[sandnsea]

25. Your poll doesn't reflect that

Your poll shifts comments about the electorate and single payer to a question about politicians buddying up to monied interests. They aren't the same thing at all. So how can you say you're wanting an honest debate on the topic. You clearly don't.

[redqueen]

Feel free to leave the thread and put me on ignore.

Or start your own, much much much better thread.

kthxbye

[sandnsea]

37. I can't ask you to explain your post??

Oh brother. You're the one that questions the electorate and single payer, and then makes a poll about something else entirely. And then beat me up for questioning it. :crazy:

cuckooland around here today.

[redqueen]

38. Thanks for contributing!

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY sorry my poll question didn't meet your high standards, but could you please give it a fucking rest already?

Have a great weekend!

[TahitiNut]

4. Other nations have taken the lead. Should we accept LESS???

It's ridiculous (criminal!) that we're the worst of all industrialized nations in health care.

[redqueen]

14. It's disgusting that OUR candidates are as whored out as theirs. n/t

[TahitiNut]

15. Tell me about it.

:argh: ... and people demonize Nader? (sheesh!!)

[Lasher]

51. I really wouldn't like to have to endure another Republican presidency

It isn't a crime to test the water.

It's hard to tell how most voters feel on the subject of single payer universal health care. If they all felt like I do then I wonder why Kucinich isn't doing better in the polls. And another aspect is that industry lobbyists have managed to get individual mandate adopted in Massachusetts, for one. This is a step in the wrong direction, and many voters don't know there is a single payer alternative.

And as always, different wording of poll questions produces different results.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200706/NAT20070619a.html

I'm in favor of going for single payer universal health care right now - but not if we thought it was going to cost us the 2008 presidential election.

[damntexdem]

7. Should but won't.

[Warpy]

9. I'm so sick of these goddamned wimps being so afraid

some right wing ranter is going to call them socialists, I'm ready to puke, only I haven't had health insurance in 20 years so I don't dare do anything that even appears like I'm sick. That applies to both parties. They know the system is totally fucked. They know that no matter how big the bribes are, the for profit insurance industry is the problem and can't possibly be any part of a solution.

The one thing that will cause me to leave this country is its continued cruelty to people like me with chronic illness that makes us uninsurable.

That is, unless these fucking wimps, jellyfish and Scrooges wake the hell up, grow spines, and do the right thing for once in their pampered and overprivileged careers in office.

[Boo Boo]

17. Of course it's too much to expect. /nt

[warren pease]

20. Too much to expect...

...unless somehow Kucinich slips through the media/pundit/swiftboat conga line and actually gets the nomination. Polar bears in hell first, I'm afraid.

The rest of them are simply unwilling or unable to go up against two of the most powerful industries -- and their lobbyists -- in the world: the for-profit insurance and hospital industry; and big Pharma.

They're unwilling because they don't need these bastards dogging their every step for four years, sniveling about how they're going to lay off another 100K people and it's all (insert name here's) fault. And the baggage from basically destroying an industry that employs some amazing percentage of Americans -- I've heard as high as 17 percent -- simply can't be dealt with. Not to mention creating a probable recession, which virtually guarantees they'll be one timers.

And they're unable because many/most are in the pockets of these criminals already. I don't know specifics, so I'm possibly talking out my posterior, but a quick look at Opensecrets or Project Votesmart reveals all. I'd be willing to bet that the for-profit medical operations and the pharmaceuticals are already 'donating" big bucks. And whoever wins the nomination -- except DK again -- will be so deluged in the medical industry's largesse that they wouldn't dare mess with the current system.

You're already seeing candidate statements re "expanding coverage" or "universal coverage." "Coverage" is just code for let's invite the fucking parasites who have destroyed American health care already and give them another chance to do the same.

Single-payer, universal access is what's needed, and only that will do. These are the characteristics of single-payer. Next time you bitch at the slug who occupies your seat in congress, run these by him/her and listen to the deafening silence:


One nation, one payer.

Everybody in, nobody out.

No exclusion for pre-existing conditions.

No bills from the doctor.

No bills from the hospital.

No deductibles.

No co-pays.

No in network.

No out of network.

No corporate profits.

No threat of bankruptcy from health bills.

Full dental care

Full vision care


Anything less constitutes criminal abuse against the citizenry and can no longer be tolerated in an industrialized country with enough money to squander upwards of $600 billion on practicing genocide half a world away.


wp

[redqueen]

21. destroys an industry? recession?

sounds like scare-tactic BS to me.

[warren pease]

43. Well that's exactly what it's supposed to be...

I don't actually believe this nonsense for a second, but those are among the chief arguments for-profit medicine uses to convince its employees in congress that they better not fuck with the status quo. If you haven't already found it, there's a great site started by MDs advocating for a single-payer, universal access system. The organization is called Physicians for a National Health Program and their web site is http://www.pnhp.org/

Have a look. You'll be pissed for the rest of your life, unless you're lucky enough to move to a civilized country.


wp

[redqueen]

45. thank you

that's actually what i hope to do... move to a civilized country.

thanks again...

[gatorboy]

23. Why not put it on the ballot nationally in '08?

Let us vote whether we want a national healthcare system or not. Forget congress doing anything. I already PAY for their healthcare.

[warren pease]

56. Because that would be democracy

and the people profiting from the current system simply won't take the chance of subjecting their massive revenue streams and resulting lives of obscene wealth to the wishes of the American people. Between for-profit medical centers, insurers and the pharmaceutical industry, there are incalculable billions -- probably trillions -- on the line here, and the people who are getting filthy rich off the human misery their business practices create aren't going to cave in to public opinion.

Single-payer could poll 98 percent consistently for five years running and we'd still have the same sick system we have now. Such is the state of the power of the governed.

And don't look to your "representatives" for help, either. They're all on the medical/pharma "donation" list, which means they've been bribed to ignore the demands of their constituents for so long that they've made that ignorance a cornerstone of their political decision-making process.

As they say, an honest politician is one who stays bought. If you could afford to buy a congressperson, you too could have your needs represented within the American political agenda. Absent that, you and your needs are less important than a speck of flea shit on an old leather couch.


wp

[NaturalHigh]

26. I don't know that people aren't ready for single-payer...

but I question whether or not they're ready to pay higher taxes for it. That money has to come from somewhere. If we cut waste (in the military budget, for one example), then I'm fine with it.

For all of us with employer-provided health coverage, I doubt that we'll see an increase in our wages to cover the tax increase. In other words, we'll be paying a lot more in taxes, but I don't know that the money our employers pay for health coverage now will necessarily be reflected in a salary increase.

[gatorboy]

27. Our "employer-provided health coverage" actually means they pay a third

and I pay the rest. Which is alot. So if that amount is taken out tax-wise, fine. At least you won't have to worry about insurance companies trying to find ways to not cover certain procedures later in life when you need them the most.

[NaturalHigh]

28. Mine is paid for, as well as my family.

[gatorboy]

29. Well, there's always going to be a

"I've got mine why should I help pay for others" portion of the country.

[redqueen]

31. Indeed.

Sadly.

[NaturalHigh]

32. Well, you have to admit...

if it's something like an 18% tax increase with no commensurate bump in salary, it's a legitimate concern.

[gatorboy]

35. Absolutely! Screw everyone else.

And thanks for that crystal ball forecast. I also have a record narrated by Ronald Reagan warning us about the evils of "socialist medicine" you can pass around. (It's true, he recorded this earlier in life) :hi:

[redqueen]

36. To those more concerned with themselves than anyone else, sure.

I have to hope there are a few who care about the good of society more than their own greedy asses.

Besides, those with employer plans like yours are a teeeeeeeeeeeny tiny minority. So guess what I think about the possible issue of their greedy concerns? :)

[NaturalHigh]

39. An extra 18% held out of your check...

wouldn't affect you adversely? I guess you're a lot better off than most of us.

[redqueen]

40. My employer doesn't cover all mine.

I get to pay 2/3, like most of those LUCKY enough to have coverage.

We are still talking about the greedy lucky people who don't have to pay *anything* now, aren't we?

[gatorboy]

41. He even enjoys the luxury of our donations here,

so he can express just how much everyone else can screw themselves! Bravo!

[redqueen]

42. Hah!

I hadn't noticed that. *sigh*

[NaturalHigh]

47. I don't think being concerned about higher taxes...

is telling you to go screw yourself. You're welcome to feel that way if you want, though.

[NaturalHigh]

46. Yep, anyone who doesn't want to pay more taxes is greedy.

Count me in. :eyes:

[Stop Cornyn]

30. Other: it's not the electorate who isn't ready for single-payer, it's the leadership (Kucinich alone

excepted among the candidates).

While Kucinich's health care plan (like his plan for most things) is by far the best among the candidates' plans, Edwards's plan is by far the second best and lays the tracks for the ultimate transition to universal single-payer coverage.

Here is a really good discussion of why Edwards health care plan is the second best after Kucinich's:

In a crowded field, Edwards' health plan sets him apart by Rob Christensen

“What we have is a dysfunctional health-care system in the United States of America,” Edwards said at a recent Democratic presidential forum on health-care reform. “We need big, bold, dramatic change, not just small change.”

But what kind of plan is Edwards putting forward? Who would it help? Who would pay for it? And does it have any better chance of getting through Congress than the plan backed by the Clintons more than a decade ago?... Edwards is the only major candidate who has laid out a specific plan for making sure that everyone is insured. (Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic presidential candidate, has proposed extending Medicare to cover everyone.)... The Edwards plan would require every American to have health insurance by 2012 - the last year of Edwards’ first term if he were elected. The plan would first make health care available to everyone and then require people to carry health insurance, just as motorists must have liability insurance.

The plan is a mix of public and private strategies. Employers would be required to either provide insurance to their employees through a company policy, or to help fund coverage for their workers by contributing to regional nonprofit government entities that Edwards calls health markets.... The health markets would use the economy of scale to negotiate affordable policies through insurers. Uninsured individuals could obtain coverage through a health market. So could employers seeking to provide group policies for their employees.... Health markets would offer traditional plans from private companies such as Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Aetna and Cigna, as well as a government-run plan similar to Medicare, the federal health-insurance program for the elderly. The public-sector plan would resemble Canada’s single-payer system, in which insurance is publicly funded to control costs but doctors and hospitals remain private.

“The idea is to determine whether Americans actually want a private insurer or whether they would rather have a government-run ... single-payer plan,” Edwards said. “We’ll find out over time where people go.” The mix of market and government initiatives makes Edwards’ plan much harder to attack than Clinton’s early 1990s plan, said Leif Wellington Haase of the Century Foundation, a liberal-leaning think tank. “In this plan, the changes happen much more gradually,” Haase said. “Each element has a market element that deflects the attack. I think it’s a very smart political document.”

Although Haase thinks the Edwards plan does not go far enough, conservatives fear it would take the country too far toward government-run care. “It sets up a slippery slope to move toward a single-payer, government-run health care system,” said Mike Tanner of the Cato Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. “He realizes that Americans are not going to take that in one bite.” Tanner contends that under Edwards’ parallel system, private insurance would be unable to compete with a taxpayer-funded system. The single-payer system, Tanner argued, sounds good. But it would not be popular with citizens because it would ration treatment for expensive and long illnesses, and would discourage pharmaceutical companies from developing new drugs. “Single-payer systems are good if you are not sick,” Tanner said. “They provide routine care at low cost. But they don’t provide intensive, expensive medicine for people with serious illnesses.”...

Edwards is the only candidate to put a price tag on his health reforms - $90 billion to $120 billion per year - which he proposes to pay for by repealing the tax cuts pushed through by President Bush on families with a taxable income of more than $200,000 per year. “I do not believe you can have universal health care without finding a source of revenue,” Edwards said.

Read the whole article: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/article/38815/in-a-crowded-field-edwards-health-plan-sets-him-apart/

[Hippo_Tron]

33. It will never happen until we get corporate money out of politics

There's no point on leading on the issue when it's impossible to pass it.

[PassingFair]

44. Good thing you weren't around to counsel Susan B. Anthony....

or anyone else who ever fought against "insurmountable" odds.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. I'm not saying we give up, I'm saying we start with corporate money first...

Focus on getting corporate money out of politics first. Once that is done, single-payer healthcare will become much easier to pass as will a lot of other measures that are blocked only because of corporate contributions.

[rucky]

50. Why? Do employers like to pay healthcare benefits?

This could be a great policy for business - especially if we get the backing of small business owners - who employ 80% of the workforce, and often struggle to compete with the big corps because they can't necessarily offer the same perks.

We're just not SELLING it right. Come to think of it, we're not selling it at all - we're just assuming it'll get shot down, so it's not even on the table.

Noticing a pattern, here?

[Perky]

34. The Country may need single payer but it is not going to happen

The libertarians are too strong a force...but more importantly so are the insurance companies.

[antigop]

48. Here is why people with decent employer-provided insurance need single-payer outside of employment

If you continue to count on good employer-provided insurance then you need to keep working at a place with good employer-provided insurance until age 65. Take a look around and see exactly how many people are ALLOWED to work until age 65 at your place of employment.

More and more companies are reducing or eliminating retiree medical plans for employees who don't have a collective bargaining contract. So if you want decent coverage YOU HAVE TO KEEP WORKING UNTIL AGE 65 AT A PLACE THAT PROVIDES A DECENT GROUP PLAN.
<caps for emphasis, not for shouting>

[rucky]

49. It's a no-brainer!

The only thing that stops it short of a Dem policy is our own negative attitudes.

[antigop]

52. One of the best arguments in support of single-payer.....

Why do large companies self-insure? Because it's cheaper.

By the same reasoning, we should self-insure as a country.

[bobbolink]

54. The fact is, "WE THE PEOPLE" are going to have to demand it!

I don't think we're that desperate yet.

John Edwards comes the closest of the "big names", and I think he's movable on the important points.

Other than that..... they're all in the pockets of Big Med... especially Hillary.

We need to raise our voices and DEMAND!

[antigop]

55. Absolutely, bobbolink! n/t

[zippy890]

57. WE are ready . And we have to make our government ready

We can do this. This is one issue we have to push on, as progressive democrats.

We already HAVE single payer system in place that the federal government runs: Medicare within the Social Security Administration.

we just need a government that believes that the federal government is good, essential and efficient. Which it is under the Social Security Administration, so many americans have a family member that relies on the SSA benefits to get by.