Two simple reasons why Obama can never give us single payer.

[mistertrickster]

1. It took SIX YEARS and three presidents just to get Medicare. And that only covered people over 65. Not a single Republic CONgress person voted for it. Imagine the political firestorm to do Medicare for the entire country.

2. Health care and health care insurance is 17 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. One cannot simply "nationalize" that many jobs and that much equity without having catastrophic consequences for the economy.

We have to work for what is possible instead of standing aloof and demanding the impossible.

In the last eight years, we saw the reich-wing melt-down by insisting that reality was whatever they claimed it was -- Saddam had WMD's! The US had found TWO mobile weapons labs! Saddam works with Al Qaeda!

Reality has an unpleasant habit of reasserting the simple fact that it doesn't give a damn about ideology.

Let's avoid becoming mirror images of the anti-intellectual, anti-fact dogmatism we've fought against for the last eight years . . .

[LWolf]

1. You forgot the real reason.

He doesn't want single-payer.

[Oregone]

31. Or...

He just doesn't really care

[LWolf]

40. Yes. nt

[Individualist]

47. +1

[Skittles]

52. CORRECT

[Deja Q]

2. And I recall reading on DU someone putting up an article saying a repub wouldn't vote for anything,

period.

In which case, why bend over backwards? Why not just go for the home run, explain why the wanke(R)s are being willfully disengaging in true debate and discourse...

(of course, the President might just be setting up a precedent, which would be terrific. Hoist the (R)ejects by their own petards; hoisted on their own adult diapers because they are, in reality, overgrown babies with bladder control problems.)

[grahamhgreen]

3. Two simple reasons a black man can never be president-oh wait, oops, my bad! Single Payer YES WE CAN

[Maru Kitteh]

4. I will end up removing a squamous papilloma from my daughters tongue at home in a couple of weeks

because of a lack of access to medical care.

It should be done in a clinical setting by someone with much more experience and training than myself. It should be biopsied and sent to a lab on the extremely unlikely, very outside possibility of malignancy. Squamous papilloma do not spread, are not contagious and do not develop to cancer. She is a 20 yo female with no history of tobacco use and no cancer in her family history. It's not life threatening but it can be seen when she talks, making her self-conscious. Also, she's found herself biting down on it increasingly, which is of course very painful and opens her to infection.

She doesn't have insurance and I don't have the money to give her for a specialist's visit plus surgery, and the obligatory CYA laboratory tests that no doctor in their right mind would do the procedure without. Hell. I wouldn't, if I were them either.

It's a very vascular area so it's going to bleed like a son of a bitch but thankfully it's not very large (appx 1cm) so we are going to take care of it here.

She's my precious baby girl. I have to help her.

So yeah. THIS IS WHY WE NEED SOME KIND OF REFORM NOW. I want single payer but I understand that's not going to happen. I still want a government option available to both myself and my daughters NOW, and I will continue to fight for it.

But - most importantly, my daughters need real access to the healthcare system NOW. If that unfortunately means funneling tax dollars to insurance companies with federal subsidies for their premiums - if that gets them in them through the front door - FINE. It's not what I want, but I'm not willing to gamble with my kids lives to satisfy the arbiters of liberal perfection.

If my daughter's growth had been cancerous, she'd be screwed - NO access, NO treatment - NO hope at all. She can't wait for reform.

[mistertrickster]

6. I think the liquid nitrogen sold over-the-counter for warts might work on this.

You might want to check it out.

You have my sympathies, but I'm not sure what relevance it has to the discussion.

We need health reform, and Obama is trying to deliver it. It's not helpful to stand in the way of that reform because it isn't what you want.

[Maru Kitteh]

16. That is my point - ANY reform that brings to people the access they're denied now is a GOOD thing.

It may not be my first choice of delivery, but my kids need reform now. We can't afford to hold out for the perfect - we just can't.

Also, thanks for the nice thoughts but cryo removal is not a recommended option here.

[mistertrickster]

21. Ah, okay. I see what you're saying. Thanks, and best of luck to you and yours. nt

[sandnsea]

11. And that is it exactly

If dumbass Republicans want to shovel tax dollars to corporations in order to pay for people's health care subsidies - fine by me.

I just want people to be able to go to the doctor and get treatment when they're sick.

Are you sure you don't have a free clinic somewhere? There are more than there used to be and they don't always advertise well. I'd be glad to try and scout one out for you if you want to tell me the name of your county.

[Maru Kitteh]

18. Buffalo county, Nebraska. No free clinic that I'm aware of for hundreds and hundreds of miles.

And edit to say thanks for looking, too.

[DURHAM D]

24. How much would it cost if treated by a doctor? nt

[Maru Kitteh]

32. My best estimate - about $700

$130 specialist visit
$300 pathology report
$200 surgery
$70 miscellany

[sandnsea]

25. Yep, miles and miles between assistance

Not even any non-profit clinics that I could see. Does that Good Samaritan in Kearney have any clinics connected to it?

Another example of millions of dollars being allocated to health care, via various rural health programs, but they don't do a bit of good for someone who can't get to the doctor in the first place.

[Maru Kitteh]

28. Oh God no. Good Samaritan doesn't do anything that isn't immediately and excessively lucrative

There's a clinic of internists on the grounds, but they're independent.

[sandnsea]

30. They have a financial assistance program

I get medical care at my Catholic hospital and clinic for free, 100%. My subsidized insurance covers now, but whatever my insurance doesn't pay is covered. There are people who think our local hospital is terrible too. I guess they never applied for assistance.

[Maru Kitteh]

33. Her boyfriend applied to Good Sam for assistance after he was treated in the ER after a car accident

Even though the poor guy was impoverished, unemployed and literally had no income at the time, they told him he was not eligible under their program. They told him if he had kids, they could help him out, but since he and my daughter practice responsible birth control they're screwed.

They got a court order and garnished his wages for his medical care.

[sandnsea]

35. That's terrible

Isn't it strange how different they can be in different parts of the country. There's no child requirement at this hospital system. It's based on income alone. It's a sliding scale so almost everybody gets some kind of help. They will turn people over to collections, but only if they completely ignore hospital bills.

[Maru Kitteh]

37. You can't do anything but ignore the bill when you only make $13,000 a year and they won't set up a

payment schedule you can work with. What motivation did they have to set up a payment schedule with him when they knew they could just go in and take it?

It's sad, and brutal, and it has to stop.

[sandnsea]

38. I said it's a shame the systems are so different

They don't do that here. In fact, all you have to do here is make an appointment with the financial office and they put your bill completely on hold. The appointments are 6 months out. They'll wait. I wish all hospitals were as accommodating.

[daleanime]

5. Single payer would not "nationalize" 17 % of our GDP....

it would mean more health care and less health care insurance, how is that a bad thing?:shrug:

[mistertrickster]

7. There would be wrenching economic dislocations and massive job loss. nt

[daleanime]

23. Sir you are mistaken...

Insurance Companies would downsize, but the increase demand (adding how many millions of people?) in the health care section would more then make up for those. Wouldn't you rather see people payed to help others or payed to refuse care(which is how insurance companies make their profits). How many more doctors would we need? Nurses? Lab techs? People to train all of the health care workers? How about rural hospitals that would no longer be in danger of going under?

Of course it would be work, but not that much, and well worth itO8)

[Edweird]

44. So it's better for people to go without healthcare than for insurance employees to look for work?

[rug]

8. You're equating single payer with the Iraq War?

[mistertrickster]

10. Yes, in a way. The right-wing claimed that they were right, and that anyone

who disagreed with them "wanted the terrorists to win."

They were ideologues to whom facts didn't matter.

I'm hearing a lot of the same thing toward Obama's health reform around here--he's a sell-out, this is a give-away to corporate America, we'll never have good health care unless it's single-payer, etc. etc.

The trouble is that reality just isn't as simple as a dogmatic belief. Germany and Switzerland have a good health care system that uses private health insurance, for instance. Their system would be very do-able here.

Japan also has private insurers, but they also have gov't price controls which would be hard to do here.

[TransitJohn]

9. It's even simpler than that.

There is one reason: corporate personhood. The corporations have the best representation that money can buy.

[QC]

12. Here are a few million more reasons:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638#sectors

[David Zephyr]

17. Yep.

And who they own.

[QC]

19. Over 60 million bucks from the FIRE and health sectors. n/t

[David Zephyr]

20. Helpful link, QC.

Thanks.

[mistertrickster]

13. The gloom-and-doom continues . . . let's all go eat worms . . . nt.

[cliffordu]

36. Yep, lets!...Gimme a quart o' them ginormous night crawlers.

I'll make us all an omelette.

[Coyote_Bandit]

14. You obviously do not understand

what single payer is if you think it would result in nationaliziing all health care jobs. You are perpetuating Teabagger "facts." Educate yourself.

There is really only one reason why we will not have single payer: Our leaders and many of our citizens are lacking in human kindness and good will toward others who are less fortunate.

[mistertrickster]

15. Does Germany have single payer? Switzerland? France? Japan?

I AM trying to educate myself on this complex issue.

I wish more people would do the same and educate others rather than falling back on snarky comments.

[dflprincess]

22. France and Japan use a mix of a government plan and insurance companies

Switzerland and Germany use private insurers. However, in all 4 countries the private insurers are heavily regulated and not for profit.

We have as much chance of passing single payer as passing anything that would truly get crooked outfits like United Health Group or Cigna under control. They haven't been spending all that money on campaign "contributions" to wind up being told how to run their business.

[mistertrickster]

26. You mean, something along the lines of a public option?

What is the Public Option?

Tom Foley

Healthcare.change.org

If you have 30-40 million people in one giant pool of customers (the Health Care Exchange), with many of their premiums subsidized by the government, this is a pretty great deal for private insurance. Sure, there are new regulations, but they’re not being asked to fundamentally change their business practices. The “game” of creating profit by finding ways to attract healthy customers who won’t need that much care and to reduce the amount of care they pay for existing customers goes on. The game has no incentives for operating more efficiently, with less administrative waste or executive compensation, or for delivering more quality care.

So how do you change the game? The solution favored by the president and many others is to introduce a new player into the market with different incentives. As a government-run insurance plan, it won’t have to make a profit, won’t have to pay a CEO’s salary, and will have lower administrative costs (currently, administrative costs are 3% of Medicare, 7% of Medicaid and 15-30% of private insurance). It would have incentives towards quality, presuming you’re a long-term customer because the government will eventually be paying for your Medicare costs. It would have an incentive to use its bargaining power to achieve lower costs -- savings it would pass on as lower premiums. And it would force private insurance to compete on those terms, or lose customers. It would change the game.

[Maru Kitteh]

27. So the question is, are you willing start somewhere or do you believe we should do nothing

In the absence of getting exactly what we want, do you think we should do nothing?

[dflprincess]

29. Mostly I was trying to answer the other poster's questions about other countries

As far as what Obama has been talking about, I have mixed feelings. The current system is unsustainable and sooner or later will collapse on it's own and then the only option really would be to extend Medicare to everyone. Proposals like HR3200 are nothing but gifts to the private insurers and really designed to do nothing but shore up a failing system by forcing us to buy into it.

On the other hand there are people who can't wait for the system to collapse. Most of us will not be eligible for the public "option" (which really won't be an option for most) for several years, if then. However, Obama does claim that those with preexisting conditions who currently don't have insurance will be able to get insurance "immediately" - or so he said in Minneapolis yesterday. If that is true, then we probably do need to go with this faux reform now. UNLESS the only thing that changes is that the insurance companies will have to cover people, but are still able to make the premiums and out of pockets so high that people still won't be able to afford insurance or care. Then we might as well wait to get single payer or for it all to fall apart.

The other thing that concerns me if this sham gets passed is that, Obama and the Congressional Democrats will spend a fair amount of time patting themselves on the back and expect us to be grateful to them for further entrenching the private insurers and it will take another 20 years to get true reform passed.

[Coyote_Bandit]

43. Single payer

Here's a link for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

Really it is your responsibility to educate yourself. There will always be somebody trying to sell you something. The only way you will recognize that is if you have done your own research and have developed the ability to think for yourself. Nothing snarky about that.

Single payer will not nationalize health care because it has nothing to do with government assuming ownership of healthcare providers. Those all remain privately owned - with a profit motive. What it does do it create one single government or quasi government entity that collects healthcare fees (e.g., premiums) and disburse payments for services rendered. That is very different that nationalizing healthcare.

[Ms. Toad]

46. Agreed, but it would nationalize or eliminate

the jobs of those working for insurance companies.

I'm not saying we shouldn't switch - but the job restructuring would have substantial nationwide economic impact.

[Coyote_Bandit]

48. Your statement

in the OP was:

"Health care and health care insurance is 17 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. One cannot simply "nationalize" that many jobs and that much equity without having catastrophic consequences for the economy."

Single payer would not nationalize healthcare jobs. That 17% figure you're throwing out is worthless because it includes jobs that would remain unaffected. Also, you cannot measure impact on labor force by using GDP measures. If you want to measure that impact then you need to be talking about the number of workers who will be impacted. Makes sense doesn't it. After all the impact on health care insurance workers is your concern isn't it?

The health care insurance function under a single payer system could go to any designated entity under a single payer system. For example, insurance companies could be merged and serve as a quasi government entity. Under that scenario many of those workers would retain their jobs with little disruption.

[Ms. Toad]

50. Not my statement - and I'm not throwing out any figures.

You might want to check who's making which post.

I was responding to your suggested that nationalization of health care was a republican myth. I merely pointed out that the employees of the insurance companies will either be nationalized or will lose their jobs. Part of the argument in favor of single payer is the elimination of much of the administrative cost. The administrative costs, in large part, are people.

Again I'm not saying we should not move in the direction of single payer - but to pretend that doing so will not have significant national economic impact - or is just a republican talking point - is not realistic.

[mmonk]

34. He can't do it because the Democratic Party is against it.

There's no way we can give them a better opportunity than have already given them. The Republican party under Chairman bush ran through the Democrats in Congress with less numbers. Those of us who want single payer only have some members of the Progressive Caucus representing us and progressives are the whipping boy of the party as it seeks that bribe money the Republicans used to have. Sorry to be blunt but those are the facts.

[BlooInBloo]

39. "Let's avoid..."

Too late.

[rucky]

41. 1. We already have the infrastructrue in place to expand Medicare.

2. It wouldn't affect the way direct care would be run - it would simply take the insurance companies out of the picture. We'd still need paper-pushers, so the job losses may not be as bad. We won't know until we really look at the single-payer proposals.

[blindpig]

42. Where does the will and need of the people fit in here?

I suppose it doesn't at all.

[Orsino]

45. The House and the Senate. n/t

[Cleita]

49. So you are saying we haven't socially evolved enough to move beyond

Medicare for old people and get it to everyone? I think we have. We need to move the obstructionists out of the way. I think with a lot of effort it can be done. Giving up the fight and having a defeatist attitude never got anyone any where. It's time to make it THE time for this issue.

[Umbral]

51. Bullshit, health insurance is not 17% of GDP, the health care industry as a whole is 17% of GDP

The health insurance business is a smaller, parasitic, percentage of that 17%. And to those people profiting off the sickness of others, find another job you vampiric fucks!