If he had fought this hard for Single-Payer...

[SHRED]

...as he is for bombing Syria...well...I can dream can't I?

[JoePhilly]

1. isnt congress about to vote NO?

[JI7]

2. why let that get in the way of the phony outrage circle jerk

[JoePhilly]

68. They appear to be running out of speculative outrage strawmen.

[grahamhgreen]

81. So it's decided then, & Obama is addressing the nation to waste time.

He's the cheesy car salesman with an old used war from history, a lemon, a real junker, and his boss is making him sell it to the struggling families of America who have already said, "stop stalking us, creep".

[whatchamacallit]

132. Lol!

[liberal_at_heart]

7. The point is he is fighting for the right to srike Syria. He never fought for single payer.

[SHRED]

8. +1000

[bigwillq]

9. Good post.

He's fighting for Syria even though he knows he probably doesn't have the votes.
He probably didn't have the votes for single payer but he still should've fought like heck.

[leftstreet]

13. +1

And Americans would have had his back in that fight

[Hekate]

48. Not by the time the GOP was done with the "socialized commie medicine" meme

Single payer would not have had the backing of the average Murkin who believes even now that the ACA is a commie plot with death panels.

[cui bono]

57. But maybe we would have ended up with the Public Option

which he also never fought for. Let's face it, he doesn't fight for much other than banksters and MIC.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

79. Bingo!

Sometimes, you just got to look at trends and come up with an analysis.

[bvar22]

95. Obama & The Party leadership abandoned the field to the Republicans during "TeaBagger Summer".

While the Republicans were covering the nation with Town Halls, and dominating the Media with demand outraged appearances, the Democratic Party responded with........nothing.

The activists in the trenches did what they could to counter the barrage of propaganda,
but there was NO LEADERSHIP or COORDINATION or Assistance from The Democratic Party.

BY the time the Democrats timidly took to the field again in the Fall, it was over.
The Issue had been framed, and the Dems were On the Defensive.

The Republicans TOOK that issue with a saturation/ flood-the-zone strategy,
the same Flood the Zone strategy that the Democratic Party Leadership is using to Get-Their-New-WAR-ON!!!

The contrast could NOT be more obvious,
and the priorities of the Party Leadership could NOT be more visible.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[CrispyQ]

103. If I recall, that was the same summer that Remote Area Medical was hosting a free healthcare event

in LA. The news media was all over it. They had reporters on the ground interviewing happy people who were finally going to be getting vital health/dental/eye care. Some of the interviewees were in tears. It was very moving.

Where was our President & democratic leadership? Why was there no lofty speech about how single payer would be like this event, only better, cuz it would be in your own community & you could pick your own doctor! Nope. No historic speeches for that. Crickets, that's what we heard.

[BrotherIvan]

112. + infinity

I wish this was an OP as this needs to be pointed out over and over. As your sig line says, not only do we know them by their works, we can clearly see their priorities by what they're willing to fight for.

[golfguru]

138. You are wrong on 2 counts

1. The ACA did not receive any GOP votes anyway and still passed.

2. Single payer could have also passed without a single GOP vote at that time because we had solid majorities in both houses.

[gopiscrap]

28. yup I agree

[JoePhilly]

64. Oh, I thought the point was, "things that can't pass Congress anyway".

[Whisp]

67. can you name one country where single payer was achieved

in one term of the leader's office?

no, you can't.

ACA is a huge step toward single payer and is helping many people right now and will help more in the near future.

but don't let that get in the way of your impossible dreams.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. Yes I can, the UK's National Health Service. Clement Attlee's government elected in 1945

NHS considered implemented by 1948. Mr Attlee was PM until 1952, one year shy of a US two term administration.

And that's just off the top of my head.

[Whisp]

96. No, it didn't come all at once in a neat package.

Healthcare prior to the war had been a patchwork quilt of private, municipal and charity schemes. Bevan now decided that the way forward was a national system rather than a system operated by regional authorities, to prevent inequalities between different regions. He proposed that each resident of the UK would be signed up to a specific General Practice (GP) as the point of entry into the system, and would have access to any kind of treatment they needed without having to raise the money to pay for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_%28England%29

ACA is the patchwork quilt phase. It will take time, but proper single payer will come out of it. Will grow out of it instead of appear instantly like it was teleported from Utopia.

[bvar22]

100. ACA is NOT a step toward Single Payer.

It is a GIANT STEP toward Privatization.

Please show me the Next Step.

HOW do we move from
"Every American MUST BUY Health Insurance from "Private" Corporations"
to
Publicly Owned, Government Administered Cradle to Grave Health Care for EVERYONE?

Those dots do NOT connect.
We have to erase Dot 1 in order to get to Dot 2.

[Whisp]

101. some states have the opportunity to go single payer

it is allowed in the ACA.

this is the way it will be done.

would you have liked the Supremes to repeal the ACA act?

come on, say it and tell all the people that are very positively affected by ACA that they have to give it back because bvar is mad.

[bvar22]

109. Nobody has ever said that "some" people will not be helped by the ACA.

There ARE some good, Liberal components, like the Expansion of Medicaid.
Premiums WILL come down as 40 Million to 70 Millions low risk Americans are forced to BUY Health Insurance from "private" sources.

The problem with the ACA is that its still NOT a good deal for the American People. It is far, FAR less than the rest of the civilized WORLD takes for granted.
We traded away THE MANDATE, which codifies the For Profit Health Insurance Corporations as the gateway to Health Care in the USA,
for a dream that might materialize later.

The dream of the individual states implementing their OWN Public Option
is still just a dream, one fraught with perils and death traps,
but The MANDATE is REAL and it is now THE LAW.

LARGE risk pools is the element that makes insurance work.
A provision of the ACA FORBIDS a National Public Option.
Diluting the Risk Pool to 50 individual, Public Options run by 50 separate states with 50 distinct Overhead & Operating Costs really won't be able to offer much in the way of Cost Savings to the individual American. In all likelihood, they will fail on their own forever sealing our fate.

Kind of like Jack.
He traded the Family Cow for a handful of beans,
but they might be MAGIC later.

The MANDATE is REAL. It is NOW.
Small Public Options? still just a dream.
Not a DEAL I would sign.

We will see.
40Million - 70 Million Americans who either can not afford Insurance,
or who think they don't NEED insurance will be forced onto The Exchanges in 2014, and most will be forced to pay their part our of near empty pockets.
That is a lot of unhappy campers.

There is ONE group that is jubilant about ACA:
The price of stock in the Health Insurance Corporations has DOUBLED since ACA was passed. The Smart Money says ACA is a GOLDMINE for the Investor Class.



Privatized, Market Based Solutions that enrich the Investor/Ownership Class are REPUBLICAN plans.
I don't vote for REPUBLICANS.
I vote for DEMOCRATS because I believe that access to Health CARE is a basic human RIGHT,
and NOT a commodity to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

[font size=3]
The ACA has postponed REAL Health Care reform in America for at least another generation, and has opened the door to our Public Treasury to a completely parasitic Industry.[/font]
A Step in the WRONG direction, unless your are a Republican,
or a member of the 1%.


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[Whisp]

118. Many people will be helped.

Why people are fighting this is crazy. I can understand the baggers and that type because it is an attempt for a black eye to Obama.

I can't trust anyone who says that ACA is Harming public health care. That is pure nonsense bordering on gibberish from another planet.

[Progressive dog]

107. Yes it is a step toward single payer

and it is obviously a step away from privatization. It expands the PUBLIC medicaid and it imposes additional PUBLIC regulation on the private medical insurance companies.
Very few countries actually provide

Publicly Owned, Government Administered Cradle to Grave Health Care for EVERYONE?

which is beyond single payer.

[Schema Thing]

71. so he's avoided getting involved in Syria for two whole years

and now because chemical weapons have been used on a mass scale, he's been forced by circumstance, FOR THE PAST ONE WEEK, to try and get America and the world on board to respond appropriately to CHEMICAL WEAPONS (you know, gas, like Sarin, that targets civilians and house-pets much more than it targets combatants) use.... and that all somehow comes down to him not forcing congress into instituting single-payer health-care in America?

Even though the ACA has a backdoor to single-payer in it, and some states are already instituting it?


Man, with friends like DU....

[Segami]

111. +1001

[blkmusclmachine]

114. "Make me do it."

[treestar]

120. Says who?

Very different question, too. There was room for compromises. Totally different issue. Not nearly as cut and dried as this one. This one involved foreign policy, which is different to domestic policy.

[TheDebbieDee]

137. Everybody seems to forget all the $hit Obama had on his plate

the first 18 months of his Presidency. Nobody remembers the BP explosion and pollution of the Gulf, the pirates in Somalia, the continuing economic crisis, the auto industry attempted bankruptcies, managing two wars in the butthole of the world, etc., etc.

That's no excuse for not fighting the repukes tooth and nail and calling them on their shit - I'm just saying that he had several more urgent things to do then go on a rally tour for healthcare reform!

[truebluegreen]

143. His signature piece of legislation...

but he just didn't have time?

[TheDebbieDee]

148. Exactly! Now you're getting it........

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. ROFL

[JoePhilly]

66. Apparently, he should have fought harder for Single Payer so that

nothing would happen.

[Skittles]

141. but you're claiming nothing will happen with Syria!!!

WTF

[Skittles]

11. oh, NOW you're using that excuse?

[morningfog]

17. Isn't he working like hell to get to yes? Hasn't he reserved the right to stirke without them?

[sabrina 1]

27. They are reacting to their constituents. War isn't popular. But Single Payer

is and if he had fought for it he would have had the backing of the American people.

But he didn't. So we'll have to wait for the next President.

[JoePhilly]

70. Wasn't going to pass Congress, just like this won't, apparently.

But it is fun watching the same folks who endlessly scream that the entire system is fixed against them by TPTB, suddenly claim that their outrage is what's actually driving Congress this time.

As for the next President ... lol ... the perpetually outraged around here aren't about to get busy finding an acceptable candidate for 2016.

Although it is possible that Hillary will take the progress Obama provided via the ACA and continue to expand it towards Single Payer. And all the while, the perpetually outraged will remain perpetually outraged.

[treestar]

121. Once they have single payer

They will be outraged as various aspects of it that aren't good enough.

[LWolf]

72. I certainly hope so.

Of course, voting no doesn't mean he won't go anyway. Voting no doesn't mean it won't keep coming back until they vote yes. Voting no doesn't mean, if Syria doesn't work, that tptb won't find another war to keep our eyes off our domestic inequalities.

If he had fought this hard for single-payer, Congress might have voted no; would probably have voted no.

But then, single-payer would be on the table as a legitimate offering, to be on the table, discussed, and re-offered repeatedly until the ubiquitous presence simply allowed it to become possible, and finally, fact.

That's the way the right wing has been handling US for my lifetime.

[rhett o rick]

104. Why are you asking? Are you making an insinuation or just asking the status?

Let me guess at you insinuation. If Congress votes no, then Obama must not have tried hard.

I agree with the OP. I wish Pres Obama worked as hard to get single payer health insurance as he is to bomb Syria.

[ProSense]

3. Why didn't Congress fight "this hard for Single-Payer..."?

Why didn't they fight this hard for a public option?

They seem to fight Obama at will, but on those issues they make him out to be a dictator.

Like I said, If only voting yes on repealing Obamacare would have the same effect as voting yes on a limited strike on Syria.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023604428

[HumansAndResources]

19. Because DLC-Dems Took Single Payer "Off the Table" just like the Bush Impeachement WE Voted For

Elect and Regret - or STOP supporting DLC Sellouts.

[PBass]

23. Single payer was never "on the table" and neither was impeachment.

Delusional thread is delusional.

[JayhawkSD]

33. Oh no, no, no, no

Obama himself took single payer off the table. He said it would be "too disruptive." That is his words.

He also took off Medicare drug price negotiation, Drug reimportation, hospital price regulation, health insurance premium regulation, medical anti-trust exemtion repeal... Everything, in fact, that would have significantly reduced the cost of health care.

[PBass]

38. Single Payer was never on "Obama's table" to begin with.

You simply cannot rationally fault Obama for "not fighting for" something which was never part of his Health Care plan to begin with.

But that's what people are doing in this thread.

[avaistheone1]

45. President Obama himself made a concerted effort to ensure that a single-payer health care system

would not be even placed on the table for discussion.

President Obama said at his State of the Union Address 1/27/2010

"But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."

In response Dr Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Program wrote the following letter to President Obama

Open Letter to President Obama on Health Care Reform

By Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Op-Ed News
January 28, 2010

President Barack Obama|
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama,

I was overjoyed to hear you say in your State of the Union address last night:

"But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."

My colleagues, fellow health advocates and I have been trying to meet with you for over a year now because we have an approach which will meet all of your goals and more.

I am a pediatrician who, like many of my primary care colleagues, left practice because it is nearly impossible to deliver high quality health care in this environment. I have been volunteering for Physicians for a National Health Program ever since. For over a year now, I have been working with the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care/ National Single Payer Alliance. This alliance represents over 20 million people nationwide from doctors to nurses to labor, faith and community groups who advocate on behalf of the majority of Americans, including doctors, who favor a national Medicare-for-All health system.

I felt very optimistic when Congress took up health care reform last January because I remember when you spoke to the Illinois AFL-CIO in June, 2003 and said:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program." (applause) "I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

And that is why I was so surprised when the voices of those who support a national single-payer plan/Medicare for All were excluded in place of the voices of the very health insurance and pharmaceutical industries which profit off the current health care situation.

There was an opportunity this past year to create universal and financially sustainable health care reform rather than expensive health insurance reform. As you well know, the United States spends the most per capita on health care in the world yet leaves millions of people out and receives poor return on those health care dollars in terms of health outcomes and efficiency. This poor value for our health care dollar is due to the waste of having so many insurance companies. At least a third of our health care dollars go towards activities that have nothing to do with health care such as marketing, administration and high executive salaries and bonuses. This represents over $400 billion per year which could be used to pay for health care for all of those Americans who are suffering and dying from preventable causes.

The good news is that it doesn't have to be this way. You said that you wanted to "keep what works" and that would be Medicare. Medicare is an American legacy of which we can feel proud. It has guaranteed health security to all who have it. Medicare has lifted senior citizens out of poverty. Health disparities, which are rising in this nation, begin to disappear as soon as patients reach 65 years of age. And patients and doctors prefer Medicare to private insurance. Why, our Medicare has even been used as a model by other nations which have developed and implemented universal health systems.

Mr. President, we wanted to meet with you because we have the solution to health care reform. The United States has enough money already and we have the resources, including esteemed experts in public health, health policy and health financing. Our very own Dr. William Hsiao at Harvard has designed health systems in five other countries.

I am asking you to meet with me because the solution is simple. Remove all of the industries who profit off of the American health care catastrophe from the table. Replace them with those who are knowledgeable in designing health systems and who are without ties to the for-profit medical industries. And then allow them to design an improved Medicare-for-All national health system. We can implement it within a year of designing such a system.

What are the benefits of doing this?

* It will save tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of American lives each year, not to mention the prevention of unnecessary suffering.

* It will relieve families of medical debt, which is the number one cause of bankruptcy and foreclosure despite the fact that most of those who experienced bankruptcy had health insurance.

* It will relieve businesses of the growing burden of skyrocketing health insurance premiums so that they can invest in innovation, hiring, increased wages and other benefits and so they can compete in the global market.

* It will control health care costs in a rational way through global budgeting and negotiation for fair prices for pharmaceuticals and services.

* It will allow patients the freedom to choose wherever they want to go for health care and will allow patients and their caregivers to determine which care is best without denials by insurance administrators.

* It will restore the physician-patient relationship and bring satisfaction back to the practice of medicine so that more doctors will stay in or return to practice.

* It will allow our people in our nation to be healthy and productive and able to support themselves and their families.

* It will create a legacy for your administration that may someday elevate you to the same hero status as Tommy Douglas has in Canada.

Mr. President, there are more benefits, but I believe you get the point. I look forward to meeting with you and am so pleased that you are open to our ideas. The Medicare-for-All campaign is growing rapidly and is ready to support you as we move forward on health care reform that will provide America with one of the best health systems in the world. And that is something of which all Americans can be proud.

With great anticipation and deep respect,

Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Maryland chapter, Physicians for a National Health Program

http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-Still-Time-For-Re-by-Margaret-Flowers--100127-703.html

She and a colleague stood outside of the White House, trying to get someone to come get the letter. They were told they had to mail the letter. They tried again the next day, and were turned away again. No one was going to come and take Flowers’ letter. Instead of leaving, they insisted and were arrested.

http://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/portraits/dr-margaret-flowers

[polichick]

52. Funny how Billy Tauzin (big pharma lobbyist) visited the WH...

many times during that period.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

53. Rec

[ctsnowman]

77. You're supposed

to forget everything that was said before we were given the affordable insurance act.

[bvar22]

117. Many of us are cursed with a memory.

[Melissa G]

145. Thanks, those were the points I was remembering

when I was thinking about the health care comments he jumped ship on.

[markpkessinger]

58. That's true enough . . . BUT

What the President DID do was to repeatedly speak about his support for a robust "public option" to compete with the private insurers. He continued to speak of it publicly as if it were a genuine possibility even AFTER it had been conceded at the bargaining table. And then he rather disingenuously (and in a rather snippy way) claimed, "I didn't campaign on a public option." That might have been technically true -- he always has been a master at choosing his words in such a way as not to be able to be pinned down -- but he was certainly creating that impression on the campaign trail.

[L0oniX]

75. Except while on his first campaign ...but you know ...people will say anything to get votes.

Oh yea I heard him say it at a rally in Tampa ...so go on promoting a bullshit lie.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Oh, Boo. A: He doesn't seem to be fighting so hard for this. B: He fought pretty hard for ACA.

Come on, Shred.

Give him a fucking congress that doesn't give 110% to fuck him at every turn.

[Egalitarian Thug]

60. We did skip. He worked to keep single payer completely off the table. n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

91. Yeah, it's all mean ol Congress' fault. So much for 11-Dimensional rope-a-dope bipartisan chess.

[pnwmom]

5. Dream about what? He's losing this battle so far. So why do you think

it would have been any different with single-payer?

The Congress makes the laws. All the President can do is propose and sign -- or veto.

[HumansAndResources]

20. Massive Anti-War Feedback - That is Why Congress Is not On Board

Congresspersons in Democratic-Districts had Massive Feedback Supporting Single Payer - but the DLC works for the Health-Insurance Corporations (along with the RNC) - not for you and me. They gave it about as much attention as "re-negotiating NAFTA" - which was "taken off the table via backchannel assurances to Canadian Barons" within hours of leaving then-candidate Obama's lips.

Let's not get fooled again by DINOs, OK?

[Mira]

6. Your thinking

makes me so sad. I absolutely fucking agree with the thought.

[Melissa G]

12. Fights should be for what you believe in

specifically, the real issues that define your values. These values are what you draw your lines in the sand over. (IMHO, manufacturing a reason for war seems a bogus basis for line drawing.)

When I was deciding between middle of the road Dems Obama vs Clinton, Candidate Obama had the edge because of his anti war vote and his health care comments.
President Obama sure jumped ship on both of those stated stands. Single payer never even made it to the president's discussion table.

[PBass]

18. Obama did NOT "jump ship" on Single Payer

Obama never promised he would institute a Single Payer plan, or even suggested that Single Payer would be his path. He did not campaign on Single Payer. If that was your impression, it was a false one.

[Melissa G]

24. Obama jumped ship on his health care comments.

I did not say he campaigned on instituting a single payer system. I heard the hedges in his comments. I said he abandoned single payer which he did at one time support before the discussions even came to the table.

If you want a link to his positions including a you tube video, try google. Here is just one link showing his half flip away from single payer.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/

[PBass]

26. Did you read your own link? He supported the idea of Single Payer as a State Senator in 2003,

saying "that's what I'd like to see" (which is not a promise of anything, by any stretch of the imagination).

When running for president, four years later, health care reform was discussed many times during the primary and general election. Obama NEVER campaigned on Single Payer, or suggested that was his plan. NEVER. He always said he would take an incremental approach, based on our current system.

That was quite a stretch you tried to make.

[Melissa G]

31. You do have trouble with reading comprehension and putting words

in other people's posts.

Try Re Reading what I wrote and get your mind around the concept of both nuance and what a half flip is.

Be sure to re read that part where I never asserted Obama campaigned on single payer. I get tired of re typing the same thing.

My reading comprehension and grasp of nuance is fine, thank you. Have a nice night!

[PBass]

40. A "half-flip" sounds like weasel words, and Politifact can take a flying leap.

Good night, though.

[bvar22]

122. Pulitizer Prize Winning PolitiFact can "take a flying leap"?

I'll file this under:
"What to do when the facts disagree with you."

[ConservativeDemocrat]

144. Maddow, Kos, and others have noted Politifact's lies about Obama

Here's just one:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/01/26/10241964-maddow-to-politifact-what-is-wrong-with-you-also-youre-fired?lite


I'll file your sudden belief in the GOP (a.k.a corporate dominated) Pulitzer (not Pulitizer) prize as yet another one of bvar's typical anti-Democratic-party agitprop.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[avaistheone1]

42. Obama did campaign on single payer in his Senate campaign.

He openly spoke about it then. (See video.) At that time he said Democrats needed control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. So Obama did position himself into the Senate based on those views.

Lo and behold Obama becomes president, and has control of both the House and the Senate, but there is no interest on Obama's part in single-payer.

WTF?

[PBass]

46. "Lo and behold Obama becomes president..." LOL

Way to gloss over more than a year of presidential campaigning, where Obama made it clear that Single Payer was not part of his health care plan. It's like you took a time machine and jumped from 2003 to 2009. Neat trick!

By the way, starting in October I will have a chance to buy health insurance from my state exchange (New York) as an individual. It's reported that the price of coverage will drop by 50%. Needless to say, I am outraged!!! Dammit, Obama!!!

[avaistheone1]

49. Tens of thousands of Americans most of them children will die each year because Obamacare

will not cover them.

Oh yeah and congratulations on your premium reduction.

[Hippo_Tron]

110. You have something to back up that statement?

The ACA has a lot of problems with it and I'd prefer to see us go in the direction of France or at least have a public option. But one of the features of the ACA is a large expansion of Medicaid, which is supposed to help deal with the problem you just stated. If tens of thousands of people mostly, children are dying each year, I'd say you can thank the Supreme Court which made the Medicaid expansion optional and the Republican legislatures and Governors that are opposing it.

[L0oniX]

76. What a mass of steaming bull shit!

I saw him and heard him talk about single payer health care while on his first campaign in Tampa.

[Schema Thing]

14. The ACA allows states to implement single-payer

Vermont is taking the lead, but other states will follow.

[liberal_at_heart]

16. Sorry but ACA is nothing like single payer. Single payer means you pay a tax for your healthcare.

When you get sick you go to the doctor and walk out without a single payment to the hospital, doctor, or insurance company. No premiums. No deductibles. No copays.

[Schema Thing]

30. actually that's not the definition of single payer - that's your wishlist

Single payer simply means that an entire population is covered in the same risk pool. There may be many contributors to the single pool (insured persons, employers, government, etc.).

Vermont and other states are already working towards it, and all states will have the option to do so in 2017. The ACA is what makes that possible.

If you'd take a break from bitching to actually learn what you're bitching about, you might be pleasantly surprised at, well, progress. You know, progress? That root word of "progressive"?

[liberal_at_heart]

51. I know people who live in the UK and Europe who do not pay copays or premiums. They pay a tax and

that is it. It is not a wish list. It is what single payer is. People keep trying to redefine it so we will accept the capitalist health care system we have here but I will not accept it. I will not stop fighting for single payer(true single payer) until we get single payer.

[Schema Thing]

63. The UK and Europe are not one thing.

They are many countries with many styles of health care (all better than the US).

The UK has the NHS, which I think is great, but no one is talking about instituting that here and it is NOT what is being spoken about when people and advocacy groups call for "single-payer" in the US. It is true government run health-care. It's not what the US is ever going to have, and it's not what France, Germany, or Canada has.

Canada has the classic "single-payer" system that is what people are talking about when, for instance, they say "instead of Obamacare we should have just done Medicare for All".


So you keep fighting for single-payer, but meanwhile Obama put us on the path, and Vermont is taking the lead, and your state can move in that direction if it so chooses.

[enlightenment]

82. Actually, MANY

people - many of whom are undoubtedly far more knowledgeable than you are on the issues - have promoted a nationalized "free" at the point of service health care system.

The fact that you choose to ignore that only makes you as responsive as the President was at the time to mere introduction of the concept. It doesn't make you right.

[Schema Thing]

84. Hey, I'd love to have that.

But it isn't "single-payer" in a meaningful sense of the term, it's a National(ized) Health Service, the UK is one of the few countries that has it, and it wasn't going to happen in America in 2009, and probably never will. But know this, that if there is even the tiniest possibility of it ever happening in America, it will be because government actually greatlyimproved the health care system we had, and people got a taste of the fact that government can do something to help them wrt healthcare.


I've found very few people who know more about "the issues" wrt health care systems than me. They exist of course, but they don't post lies and misinformation and out-right tantrums on discussion boards. They post about the reality of healthcare systems as it exist, not as political football.

[enlightenment]

87. Of course it's a political football.

Not because it should be, but because that is what our system has made it.

A huge part of the problem, is word parsing (which is tossing a political football). You define "single-payer" in one way - when in truth it most certainly does include systems like the NHS. What is done with the funds after they are pooled is what separates most of the systems.

We don't have to have an NHS system full-stop, but we have got to move away from the idea of including for-profit health insurance corporations in the equation. The ACA encodes their participation in a way that ensures we will never locate that "back door" you keep talking about.

It's nice to believe that "other states" will follow Vermont's lead (which is a pooled insurance scheme) - but that is less than realistic and suggests that you really don't know as much as you think you do. If you're an expert, post your credentials - but please don't think that anyone should accept your pronouncements as deeply informed when they clearly are not.

[liberal_at_heart]

85. I'm not talking about Medicare for All. I'm talking about single payer where all you pay is a tax. I

personally know people who all they pay is a tax. When they walk out of a hospital they don't pay a damn penny. They don't have premiums or deductibles or copays because insurance companies are not even part of the equation.

[Schema Thing]

97. good luck with that.

I think the overwhelming majority of people in the USA, when referencing a single-payer system, are talking about something like Canada.

If people are clueless enough about reality, and enamored enough about raw capitalism, to hold signs saying "keep your government out of my Medicare", don't you think getting them to go for actually having the government own hospitals and clinics is a little outside the realm of current or even near-future possibility?

Especially when Medicare for All would be a great single-payer system and is already set-up and working?

[liberal_at_heart]

99. I will never stop working for true single payer and I am not alone. Medicare for All is better than

the current system, but it has holes and still allows for insurance companies to profit off of our health or lack thereof. My father has Medicare and cannot afford the premium. My husband has Medicare and private insurance. Between having both his copays are covered, but if all he had was Medicare we would still have out of pocket expenses that we cannot afford. Go ahead and insult single payer all you want. Say it is impossible. Say it will never happen. I don't give a shit. I will never stop fighting for it.

[OwnedByCats]

134. I lived in the UK

The NHS system was great, and there is NO reason why they can do it and we can't. There is absolutely no excuse for us having this sorry system we have right now except that our government does not have their priorities straight. They spend nauseating amounts of our tax money on things they shouldn't be spending it on. Great Britain charges a tax (which is affordable for everyone btw), you see a doctor, no charge. You go to hospital, no charge. Operation, no charge. Dental and eye you pay for but at a tiny fraction of the cost we pay here for dental and eye care, I never had trouble affording my dental bills and I wasn't rich by any stretch. The only thing I had to pay for outside of the tax was for prescriptions, at an extremely cheap copay, standard amount regardless of drug or quantity. If you're on meds you need daily for a long time, they can prescribe you a years worth for the one time cost but even if you had to do it monthly, it wouldn't be a burden at all. Weirdly, even though I could afford the small copay for my birth control, it was still free - for everyone. You can go "private" as they call it and either pay out of pocket or use an insurance plan like BUPA. However, it's going to be the higher upper income people who will go that route. As far as quality of care, I could not complain since my husband had stage 3 Hodgkin's lymphoma and they went above and beyond for him - he's been in remission for 13 years. We didn't go bankrupt either, but we surely would have here. I found a great doctor for me too. Yes, there are waiting lists for some things like hip replacements - but what would you rather have? Waiting a few months or not being able to get it at all because you can't cover what your insurance won't, or getting it but losing all your assets to bankruptcy?

As far as horror stories, I never heard anything happen there that I never heard happen here. Except here it happens more often and some have the pleasure of paying for it dearly.

I'm tired of the excuses. If little old England can make it work, we sure can. Just cut the spending on, oh I don't know, bombing other nations? That would only be the tip of the iceberg. It's time the USA started investing in the health of their citizens, for all. Sure if the 1% want to keep their insurance they can, but the rest of us can't keep doing it the rate we are going.

[Schema Thing]

136. agree with all of that, but it isn't going to happen unless something

radically changes in the American collective psyche.


Meanwhile a single-payer system like Canada has would/will be be a huge improvement over pre-Obamacare America. I'd love to see that happen nationally, but it seems highly unlikely - it looks like it will happen on a state by state basis. Which, as I understand it, is not that different from the way it came about in Canada.

snip: http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/medicare/medic-5h01e.shtml

Between 1958 and 1968, citizens in every Canadian province debated the pros and cons of medical services insurance. At the heart of the debate was the question of the role of government in health care. Was it to be the sole funder and chief administrator? What role was there for the medical profession? For the private insurance companies? For Trans-Canada Medical Plans?In a society that was split between those who wanted to see governments extend the benefits of the welfare state to all citizens and those who viewed government support as equivalent to communism, the debate over medicare was destined to be headline news throughout the decade. Saskatchewan led the push for publicly administered and funded medical insurance, while Alberta and Ontario restricted public funding to support for the indigent and those on low incomes. Elsewhere, Quebec was focusing on the development of its own approach to health and social services, while the Atlantic provinces were deeply concerned about their ability to afford the human and financial costs of expanded health care services. And between 1962 and 1968, the national political scene saw a series of minority Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments led by John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson grapple with the modernization of Canadian society. The debate about medicare was a key component of that process.

[chervilant]

61. When I read posts like yours:

If you'd take a break from bitching to actually learn what you're bitching about, you might be pleasantly surprised at, well, progress. You know, progress? That root word of "progressive"?

I have to wonder: do you converse like this face to face, using condescension and sarcasm? Do you honestly think verbal bullying promotes your position? Do you think you're getting respect from other DUers?

I've developed a strategy for eliminating such vitriol from my experience of this forum. (I'll trust that you understand this strategy, and will not waste time posting a response that I choose not to see...)

[Schema Thing]

65. you saw this ;)

but not the next thing

[liberal_at_heart]

86. I get insulted on this website regularly because I have the audacity to criticize the president.

Most of them go on ignore. If this poster keeps responding in this fashion they will go on ignore as well. I don't respond well to bullying tactics. In fact, it just makes me more defiant.

[chervilant]

113. Two things:

1. Have you noticed that such individuals seem determined to respond, even knowing you will not see their derisive drivel?

2. Have you seen the threads of late, wherein certain members of this forum claim "never" to use their ignore list (tending toward sanctimonious self-righteousness), then belittle or deride those of us who do?

Life on DU is much better without the racists, the misogynists, the homophobes and the verbal bullies...

[liberal_at_heart]

119. yes I have noticed that.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

147. That's because their target audience isn't you. It's everyone else.

You don't put people on ignore who are "racist, misogynist, and all that other bullshit". There aren't those sorts of people on D.U. They get kicked off immediately.

You put people on ignore for pointing out grammatical errors in a post complaining about bad school results.

You posted:
Our state knows it's students will not pass it's new Common Core Standards Test.

NoPartisan replied: If the grammar section includes a question about its/it's you're already down two points. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2938171

You publicly said you were putting him on ignore. (Which used to be a violation of the rules, but who knows anymore).

Everyone else thought you were absurdly thin-skinned.


I, for one, don't mind people being "critical of the President". But I do mind the outright lies and constant negativity about Democrats, including the President. And I'll point out, again and again, that kind of hate-filled bigotry, whether or not the angry anti-Democratic party bigot reads it or not.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[OwnedByCats]

135. Not criticizing politicians just because of the letter after their name

Is a republican standard. Ok maybe not all, but most. I refuse to be that inconsistent. I sure will criticize the person I voted for if I don't feel like they're holding their end of the bargain. If they aren't working to uphold what they claimed their ideals were, then yes I will criticize. You're not alone liberal_at_heart.

[phleshdef]

39. And again, it allows states to setup that system within the state.

As long as they can meet the coverage standards, they can do that.

[Iliyah]

35. Like California

thank God I live in a Blue State.

[PBass]

15. You're comparing apples and oranges here. Also, strawman argument...

Why would anyone think Obama would "fight" for something that he was never for, in the first place? Obama never campaigned on a Single Payer health care system... He has always said he wanted to start with incremental changes, based on the existing system.

quote:

But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system. “Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”

“People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said. “They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”

[link:http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/19/obama-touts-single-payer-system/

[HumansAndResources]

32. Ahhh, He Backed the Insurance Cartels to "Protect Jobs"

Clever framing (decit) there. A LOT of people work in the Military Industrial Complex - so we have to have Wars to Justify Their Jobs. See how that works?

If we wanted healthcare-incrementalism, just require all the insurance companies and hospitals to go back to non-profits - like they were (mostly) in the 1970s, when health-care was affordable, and the USA was among the "best outcomes" / %-GDP-spent in the world - unlike today. No one would have been "fired" except the millionaire "investors" on their Yachts and some Advertising Agents - who contribute Absolutely Nothing constructive to healthcare.

[PBass]

41. More apples and oranges here...

Quote:

"Clever framing (decit) there. A LOT of people work in the Military Industrial Complex - so we have to have Wars to Justify Their Jobs. See how that works?"

Yes, I can see what you're doing, it's pretty obvious.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. He campaigned on a public option 'any bill I sign must contain a strong public option'.

He also campaigned very strongly against the individual mandate. He utterly trashed Hillary Clinton for supporting that mandate, he mocked the idea of it, he characterized her as stealing from your wallet, he did this in print, direct mail, TV and radio.
And yet he never pushed for a public option and instantly backed the mandate. What he delivered is nothing at all like what he ran on and is much more like what Hillary campaigned on which Obama campaigned decidedly, clearly and resoundingly against.
So you can put single payer aside and he still can not be shown to have fought for that which he campaigned on.

[Iliyah]

36. Oh Please stop it

maybe you should chat with your local GOP or Libertarian office.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. Obama did campaign on the Single Payer issue. See post #42 and listen to his own words.

[rhett o rick]

106. So maybe the OP should say, "I wish Pres Obama wanted single payer health insurance

as much as he wants to bomb Syria."

[bhikkhu]

21. He fought harder than this for the ACA

and against worse odds. I think single payer will come in time, but meanwhile I get to sign up for Obamacare in 24 days.

But I do know what you mean. The heavy engagement in the process is good to see, and it is good to see that he has stated his case forcefully, and will abide by the decision of congress (which is being heavily lobbied by all constituents). Perhaps, Syria aside, this will be an inflexion point for the do-nothing congress?

[Iliyah]

22. OMG

this is sad.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

25. He would have been a lame duck 1 year into his presidency

And would have been a one term president who couldn't even get his healthcare bill passed.

[HumansAndResources]

37. So the Story Goes ... if Thelma And Louise would have worked a 2nd time.

Is your position that, "We Must Agree to the wishes of the Healthcare-Industrial-For-Profit Exploiters" or can't have anything at all?

That seemed to be the President's "starting point" as well. And THAT was the problem.

[gopiscrap]

29. No kidding

[me b zola]

34. Yes. Single-payer was discounted from the beginning n/t

[Starry Messenger]

43. He cancelled his keynote speech for the AFL-CIO Natl. conv this week for Syria.

[joshcryer]

44. I misread the post. Thought you said "if WE had fought this hard..."

Yeah, if the Congress was getting thousands of calls a day with 500-1 supporting single payer I could see it.

[Hekate]

47. He didn't campaign for president on single-payer, did he?

Did he?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

56. He did. See post #42 above and listen to his own words.

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. He never supported single payer...I knew that about him before he was even the Candidate...

its why I supported Hillary at first....she was closer to believing in single payer than him.

[bvar22]

124. That is NOT true.

....and again we find you spouting easily proved falsehoods at DU.

"I happen to be a proponent of Single Payer Health Care"-- Barack Obama

.
.
.
.
Many of us are pretty smart,
have good memories,
and we Pay Attention.
Some of us even keep The Video.
You won't get away with slinging easily disproved BS here.

If you would just settle down,
open your ears,
and listen for a while,
you could avoid this kind of personal embarrassment.

No Charge for the mentoring.

[VanillaRhapsody]

128. Okay I take that back...he was a propronent of it...

but knew we were never going to get that...and he is a pragmatist...so that is why we are where we are with it...
Just wasn't gonna happen...so I will gladly accept Obamacares...as a step in the right direction...

and I am not embarrassed..far from it...

[KG]

55. seems he can't sell war to republicans. that's pretty sad.

[markpkessinger]

59. I shared your post with a friend of mine . . .

. . . his response? A long sigh, and then, "It would be funnier if it weren't so damned true!"

[Doctor_J]

62. Yeah, a pretty good indication of his ideology

I just wish he'd advertized himself as a Reaganite during the 2008 campaign. I still would have voted for him, but wouldn't have been so pissed off when he governed like Reagan

[chimpymustgo]

73. He gave a few hints, speaking admiringly of Reagan's governance as being "transformative."

[Bluenorthwest]

94. That's Reagan who looked the other way at Saddam's gassing of Kurds and Iraqis

which Obama never mentioned at all. He only praises Reagan, who did the opposite of what Obama insists any civilized person would do when civilians are gassed. It lacks consistency.

[99Forever]

69. I see his true colors...

...shining through.

[NorthCarolina]

74. Yep, that should tell you something. nt

[Fantastic Anarchist]

78. Was thinking about that yesterday.

When Obama wants something, he's definitely a fighter.

[woo me with science]

80. K&R

[Fuddnik]

83. So, we now have single payer war and killing.

Next up, The Intergalactic Peace Prize.

[Octafish]

88. Excellent observation.

There's a strong correlation between money and action in Washington.

Wall Street Banksters = $16 Trillion Give-away

Warmongers and Secret Government Spies outta Carlyle Group = Whatever You Want

Detroit and Poor People = Get the Fuck Outtahere

[blkmusclmachine]

89. Obama WANTS Syria. Single Payer, though ... NAH!!!

Fooled ya!

No "Change."

[Botany]

90. Single payer was DOA when it showed up in the senate

Grassley & Baucus were bought and paid for by the insurance industry
and no way were they going to let single payer even see the light of day.

[rhett o rick]

105. Are you insinuating that is the justification for him not working harder?

If so, it's a weak justification.

[Botany]

149. yes

Obama worked for what he could get not what he wanted

[rhett o rick]

150. Ahh, the bullshit pragmatic justification. Shoot for what you think you can get, not for what

the people need. If our founders used that thinking we still would be British subjects.

Pragmatism, the excuse to settle for less.

[dflprincess]

151. And if we were still British subjects

We'd have the NHS.

[rhett o rick]

152. I want better than the NHS. nm

[dflprincess]

156. But the NHS is better than what we have now

I have a friend who had to rush back to London a few years ago because his mother was thought to be dying. She was nearly 90 and had been seriously injured in a fall. She pulled through (no extraordinary measurse, just her general good health and good care) and was back in her own home within weeks. He came back singing the praises of the NHS and the care she received was better than she would have gotten here - even with good insurance. No "interim" nursing home - everything was done in the hospital (including more therapy the Medicare will pay for) and when she got home they did have it set up for an aide to drop by everyday. The Brits have figured out its cheaper to keep people independent that to warehouse them.

A person in the same situation here would be sent to a nursing home where they might receive the therapy sessions Medicare generally pays for but would not have round the clock skilled nursing care as my friend's mom did.

[rhett o rick]

157. I dont disagree but I want more. I want a single payer system. Sorry but I am

sick of settling for less than what we deserve.

[dflprincess]

159. I agree that single payer is what we should aim for

But we also need to change how people are cared for in some situations. The practice of shipping people off to.nursing homes for short term "rehab" or recovery often fails to provide adequate care.

[WinkyDink]

98. Big Pharma and Big Insurance guffaw.

[Lex]

102. Less children would die

if he did.

[Festivito]

108. ANSWER: Lost jobs, ovednight, 1T$ industry.

1.5 trillion dollars realistically.

[MisterP]

133. "dogs and cats living together!"

[Festivito]

154. Rather, all cats, different herds. eom

These smart aleck phones are difficult.

[iamthebandfanman]

115. The result would still be the same..

congress voting no.


although, when we decided congress was a body that upholds moral standards ill never know :p

[LittleBlue]

116. No kidding

What a farce

[jazzimov]

123. It still would have gotten voted down. nt

[upi402]

125. BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why you gotta go tellin' truth all over the place?

Ouch, gonna leave mark with that one.

[liberal N proud]

126. Our only hope is the obstructionist Congress continues to be consistent

And opposes Obama.

God, I never thought I would say that!

[pansypoo53219]

127. obamacare i think will GRADUALLY end up single payer, as it evolves.

already companies are trying to cut out health care providing. which they should have done decades ago. unions should have demanded it. but are they gonna pay more wages?

[zentrum]

129. Exactly! n/t

[Doctor_J]

130. ALL of the 2008 voters would have voted democratic again in 2010

[BlueStreak]

131. Or a second stimulus. A jobs program. The infrastructure revitalization. Gun regulation

The list of things he gave lip service to is very long. The list of things that he really fights for is very short, and nothing like the things he campaigned on.

[Cryptoad]

139. Oh,,,,,,

we got ACA by just enough votes (no republicans) , if you Obama had just whipped those Republicans,,,, love that logic!

[Poiuyt]

140. I haven't seen Pres Obama fight so hard for anything since he was first elected

I haven't been on DU for a while, but I logged on looking for just such a post. He's fighting tooth and nail for permission to bomb Syria when he could have been fighting for measures that would help the economy, health care, etc. It's odd that he would choose to use the Bully Pulpit for something that he campaigned against. Will another war be Obama's legacy?

[marble falls]

142. I don't think you are Obama hating and I think you are right. He's going to have to pander ....

to the 1%ers to get Congress to approve his plan and they really want this seemingly inevitable war. Regardless of what some claim is 70% opposition to any war at all -call it whatever Kerry wants to call it, its a war - from the rest of us including the Tea Party.

What the Hell is going on?

[certainot]

146. it wouldn't matter, the left let the radio gods make single payer politically impossible

we let 1200 radio stations, many (28% of limbaugh's) endorsed by state funded universities (sports), turn single payer into a commie plot with 25 years of unchallenged think tank coordinated repetition.

it continues today- we're lucky to have obamacare. those teabagers in those town halls were the same dittoheads and they used the same old talking points.

and like every other national discussion (health care, guns, marijuana, election reform, media reform, wall st reform, the syrian one will be seriously distorted by those same 1200 radio stations. if the talk radio gods had been instructed to be for attacking syria all GOP members would be for it and we would have troops there soon instead of some limited hit. but their primary goal is to oppose obama.

whatever happens after whatever we do or do not what we will do, the goal will be to attack obama for it, keep the house, and win the senate. after that we'll be off to iran. mostly because the left continues to give the right's best weapon a free speech free ride.

[truedelphi]

153. Why would he care about Single Payer?

Clearly that was not in the small print that he signed when taking on a deal he could not refuse.
War, however, usually is in the small print for the Presidents who want to get a lot of cold hard cash once they leave office. (That messy business, as well as helping out the Big Financial concerns. )

[zipplewrath]

155. To be quite honest, he did

I'm a major critic of Obama. But I'll admit that he put a fair amount of effort on the line for the Public Option. He made at least 2 very public speeches about the public option being a necessity, right before he walked away from it and said it wasn't. I really lost most of my trust/confidence in Obama when he did 2 things. Well, three actually.

1) Okay, he didn't think he could get the stimulus that was needed. He should have said literally that he was getting all the stimulus that he thought he could get, but that vastly more was needed. Because the reality is that it was too small by half, especially after he negotiated away the protections for state government employment.

2) He accepted the need to dump the PO on a political basis. Fine, but publicly admit that this is what you are doing, AND demand that without a PO, then a mandate is out of the question.

3) He kept Gates, et. al. and did nothing to speed up the with drawl from Iraq. If he wanted a new perspective, he was going to have to get people who didn't negotiate the SOFA to begin with. For all of his campaigning on opposition to Iraq, once in office he did nothing to change the existing policy at all.

[geek tragedy]

158. Oh Jesus, the single payer unicorn is still being mourned as if it were ever alive nt

[Safetykitten]

160. Truly. Amazing the effort to destroy, but to build a better society...uh...nah!

[Jamastiene]

161. K&R

Notice how when it is time to discuss the budget, they can never find enough money to help the poor or even to pay Social Security benefits, but when they decide to bomb a bunch of people, the money is ALWAYS there for that?