Why do YOU think our candidates don't support profit-free Healthcare?

[Bullet1987]

Outside of Dennis Kucinich, none of our Presidential candidates support profit-free, single-payer healthcare. They won't cut out the middle man and cut off HMO's. Why? Healthcare is the most obvious candidate issue going into 2008, where it's OBVIOUS what the problem is...but people like Clinton, Obama, and Edwards continue to play games with the issue. Why? Is true universal healthcare just a fool's dream?

[redqueen]

1. Cause they're part of the problem?

:shrug:

[SharonAnn]

17. No, I think they're afraid of "Harry and Louise" type ads against them.

[redqueen]

26. cowardice is no excuse. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

59. No question there.

[MadHound]

2. The answer is in the list of their campaign donors, both past and present.

Do some digging and I think that you will find it.

[Capn Sunshine]

3. Easy- too much percieved resistance

Any pol takes advice from a small cadre of think tank types, and they all universally believe that the no-profit approach would bring out billions in opposition money as the Insurance Companies scramble to protect their billions.

So most candidates propose "incremental" plans to get some progress, as opposed to NO progress and a huge ass fight.

[redqueen]

4. That's a VERY weak excuse.

All it takes is a review of other countries successfully-implemented plans to prove it will work.

I hope they stop being so successful with these bullshit excuses soon. I hope Moore blasts them for it in Sicko, but I haven't seen it, so...

[Capn Sunshine]

6. its not an excuse, it's reality

That's naive to pretend otherwise. I'm all for congress naming the health of Americans a "commons" as interpreted by the constitution.

I mentionend this to Kucinich a few weeks back, and he responded "I like the way you think". Which was encouraging, but he hasn't put up anything in congress yet.

Baby steps.

[ProudDad]

16. What about HR676

Kucinich is a co-sponsor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00676:@@@P

If your congresscritter ain't on this list, call them and ream them a new asshole until they are...

[Solo_in_MD]

13. Its not an excuse

The electorate is not going to accept single massive step. I believe we will get there eventually, but it will be slowly and over time

[redqueen]

25. we just don't agree.

i think the electorate can be educated... sadly though it doesn't profit anyone to do that, so most of these complicit whores just keep playing ball with insurance companies.

they've sufficiently watered down our expectations, and it sickens me.

[bread_and_roses]

57. the electorate would accept fast enough if they heard the TRUTH from the Dems

- that as long as our health care is at the mercy of for profit corporations we will be sick and screwed both. but they don't, for which we can thank our rotton bought and sold by corporations system of funding elections.

[iamjoy]

5. A Lot Of Reasons

1) Belief that the good ol' American system of free enterprise - as long as it isn't unrestrained - works.
2) Opposition to monopolies, which a single payer system would be.
3) Countries with Single Payer systems have inefficiencies too.
Think like a bad HMO, saving money at the expense of health. There's also the PERCEPTION of long waits for appointments and procedures. Now this may not be the case, but the perception is there. And there is evidence to support either theory.
4) Fear of Unknown
Like it or not, the private insurance and for profit health care industry is so entrenched that dismantling it could lead to economic chaos.

Just some possible reasons.

[Solo_in_MD]

12. You left of suspicion of large government programs which many Americans have

Have you noticed an increasing number of UK Health system horror stories? The FUD campaign has already begun

[ProudDad]

18. I hope you don't believe any of this sh*t...

1) Belief that the good ol' American system of free enterprise - as long as it isn't unrestrained - works.
-- One of the most ridiculous of the BIG LIES extant...
There is NO room for the profit motive in the commons...
Health care is a HUMAN RIGHT not a privilege of the affluent few. Pass it on!

2) Opposition to monopolies, which a single payer system would be.
-- Big LIE. All doctors, hospitals, clinics, nurses, etc. will STILL be
individual, private persons and companies. They would all be paid
out of one pooled fund -- The SINGLE-PAYER. The bottom line would be
EVERYONE COVERED FULLY and EVERYONE would pay LESS than folks pay now.

3) Countries with Single Payer systems have inefficiencies too.
-- NOTHING like in the good ole' U.S. of A. with it's 30% WASTE before
one lousy dime goes for health care!!!
The U.S. pays more per year per person for health care than
ANY other country (by far), ranks 37th in outcomes and doesn't
even cover 1/6 the population!!!

Think like a bad HMO, saving money at the expense of health. There's also the PERCEPTION of long waits for appointments and procedures. Now this may not be the case, but the perception is there. And there is evidence to support either theory.
-- The perception is BULLSHIT and is just perpetuated
by passing it on as fact... Don't think this crap. Don't pass it on!

4) Fear of Unknown
-- "Sicko" should help a lot with this...

"Like it or not, the private insurance and for profit health care industry is so entrenched that dismantling it could lead to economic chaos."

-- The only ones harmed would be a very small minority of folks who work in the health INSURANCE industry especially assholes like William McGuire of United Health -- 1.6 BILLION DOLLAR PAYDAY!!!

The outcome for folks working in the HEALTH CARE industry would be the ability to provide better patient care with less overhead!!! Please don't believe any of the right-wing bullshit.

Thanks. :hi:

[iamjoy]

24. I Was Giving Reasons

Not saying I believed all of it. But really, saying perceptions are BS is like saying feelings are BS. It may not be true, but if enough people believe it is, then we have an issue.

Anyway, it still isn't total BS. There are more MRI machines in Pennsylvania than in all of Canada. If you were the one with the injury or illness, wouldn't you want the best medical technology available? Wouldn't you want it convenient?

Of course, this is personal for me. I am associated with the health care industry and would probably lose my job if the country moved to a single payer system. BUT, I'm okay with that. I'll probably lose my job to outsourcing within the next few years anyway, and I'd rather give it up to help forty million Americans than one person in India. HOWEVER, I am also cancer survivor. I have ongoing health issues that require regular MRIs. My stepfather is currently undergoing cancer treatment. We are fortunate to have good insurance. We are also fortunate to be able to get MRIs when the doctor requests them and with relative ease.

thinking of the ubiquitousness of MRI machines here versus their number in Canada makes me wonder if it has something to do with competition.

Not to say there aren't problems with all that, but that argument seems well represented. The case for universal coverage through private insurance is not so well represented.

Oh, and as for profit being the motive for private insurance. Of course it is. And when the government has to cut "entitlement" programs because of budget shortfalls (Republican government gives too many tax breaks to the rich) what do you think is going to happen to our health care?

America's attitude must change before we go to a single payer system. In the meantime, let's try to help the forty million.

[ProudDad]

30. You are PROVING my point!!!

"There are more MRI machines in Pennsylvania than in all of Canada. If you were the one with the injury or illness, wouldn't you want the best medical technology available? Wouldn't you want it convenient?"

MYTH, MYTH, MYTH -- BIG RIGHT WING LIE (Yes, I AM YELLING!!!!)

"Canada is big user of MRI compared to U.S., U.K."

http://www.healthimaging.com/content/view/3832/89/

And there are FIVE TIMES AS MANY people in Penn. as there are in Canada -- Big DUH!

See what I MEAN!!?!?!???? When you pass on lies like this one you make it less likely that we will be able to make health CARE (not bullshit insurance with huge profit margins but HEALTH CARE) available and affordable to everyone.

"when the government has to cut "entitlement" programs because of budget shortfalls (Republican government gives too many tax breaks to the rich) what do you think is going to happen to our health care?"

Once people get used to universal health CARE, the pukes (and cheap ass Dems) will have about as much luck getting rid of health care as they had trying to get rid of Social Security -- Fat Fucking Chance...


"I am associated with the health care industry and would probably lose my job if the country moved to a single payer system."

Unless you work in the Health INSURANCE industry, you WON'T LOSE YOUR JOB!!! If you do work for the insurance industry there will still be life, casualty, auto, fire, etc. etc. etc. etc. insurance to make your money on. If you DO work in the health insurance industry and your job is lost because of Single Payer (if your job isn't outsourced instead), then I commiserate with you and I hope you have better luck finding new employment than I have over the last decade with my jobs in the computer industry (outsourcing).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4OoWg0Wxn4&mode=user&search=


"America's attitude must change before we go to a single payer system. In the meantime, let's try to help the forty million."

I am one of the FORTY SEVEN million. My only income is Social Security. I am too young for Medicare. So I am FUCKED. I can't afford ANY for-profit health care insurance. Except for HR 676 -- Medicare FOR ALL -- sponsored by John Conyers (and supported by Dennis Kucinich) I'm still fucked by any of the other dem "plans".

So you do your incremental crap and If I get sick and die before I can get on Medicare, I promise to come back and haunt the HELL out of you selfish, cowardly, greedy 'incrementalists'... :evilfrown: :hi:

[iamjoy]

32. I Never Said You Shouldn't Have Healthcare Yesterday

Just that we shouldn't move to a single payer system tomorrow.

And I don't buy into the BS Dubya pushes of of tax deductions or the so called consumer driven plans. But, what is wrong with the government requiring most employers to provide subsidized health insurance to all employees? And what would be wrong with the government helping low income people pay their premiums?

Incrementalists aren't selfish and greedy - a lot of us are just afraid. We've heard too many HMO horror stories. And most people in this country want to get rid of entitlement programs. How to sell them on a single payer system?

I guess I'm just pragmatic, or cynical. The people of this country aren't yet ready to support single payer system. Too many horror stories out of countries that have it. Of course it may be BS, the media is funded by Big Pharma and Insurance too. But hey, perceptions (however misguided) are enough to kill a single payer system.

[ProudDad]

41. I give up

we'll have to agree to disagree with your basic (fallacious) premise.

You seem to believe that the "people" are not ready to support a system of Health Care in this country that would cost less, provide universal coverage, retain the current (occasionally excellent) health care infrastructure but allow those good folks to spend more time doing their jobs and less time providing "surplus" to the FOR PROFIT leaches in the insurance corporations, turn the equation upside down -- putting patient care OVER profits instead of the current system of PROFIT UBBER ALLES, and provide better outcomes for the health care dollar.

I do believe the people are ready and, THANK GOD FOR MICHAEL MOORE, "Sicko" may just be the thing to provide the big shove in the right direction.

[Enthusiast]

54. The insurance industry doesn't

The insurance industry doesn't deserve a cent. They provide zero care. The only spending should be for care. That is how we could afford this, by removing undeserved insurance company profits.

[eridani]

62. That's because the way HMOs control costs is totally fucked up

Especially the for-profit ones. If you are trying to control the movements of a herd of cattle, it make far more sense to put a fence around them and allow them to move freely within it instead of hiring a bunch of cowboys with reins to each individual cow.

The latter is how Canadians do it with global budgeting, and the former how profit and non-profit institutions alike do it here.

Your fire department is an entitlement program--why don't people want to get rid of them?

[eridani]

61. All the extra MRIs are not particularly useful

A lot of usage is just because they are there, and not for any particular medical purpose.

Canadian doctor: You have inoperable brain cancer
Patient: I want an MRI
Doctor: It won't tell you anything we don't already know
Patient: Goes to the US and gets an MRI because he wants one
US doctor: The MRI scan shows you have inoperable brain cancer.
(An actual incident)

They are part of why health care is so expensive--if you had 4 or 5 competing fire departments, there wouldn't be any more fires to put out and you'd have to pay taxes for 4 or 5 times as much equipment.

Have you thought of the fact that claims processing will still have to be done, and that a single payer system could FORCE the remaining jobs to stay in the US?

Repubs have not yet succeeded in privatizing Social Security yet, which is why we should not make the mistake of funding it out of general tax revenues, but put it in a separate health care only fund.

[hlthe2b]

7. Because we don't have publically funded elections and thus....

the competitive candidates (no offense to Kucinich) are beholding to BigPharma, BigInsurance, and related industry lobbies, the same as the R's are... Sadly...

[mitchum]

23. And THAT is the correct answer (n/t)

[Enthusiast]

49. This is why publicly funded elections.........

And this is why publicly funded elections must be a priority. Otherwise this country and the direction it takes will continue to be at the behest of the highest bidder. I am sick of this bull shit.

[nealmhughes]

56. Absolutely. Any nonemotional analysis reveals that the "fear" of single payer is actually fear of

massive monetary mortality in the campaign coffers/gigantic disinformation campaign cloaked under freedom of speech/press rights.
It is easy for a system to become so corrupt that it needs be cut out, Root and Branch!
The Puritan analogy was purposeful, I might add. A Kucinich/Sanders type candidate is "pure" and not beholden to any outside monies, rather being a self-perpetuating force, not one getting outside monies and corporate support -- why? Because they are above the fray and consequently free to speak their mines in the Congress, the town and union halls and high school and college auditoriums of the nation.
Until the self-serving "career candidate" is removed by means of an effecive device such as a public financing of campaigns from the primaries to the general elections, then we have no chance of even remotely getting anything but a choice of the lesser of two evils.
Wait until enough houses get repossed and then you might see the suburban intransients finding out that choosing between rent and food or medical insurance and rent alone may sway a great many as to the wisdom of a single payer universal system.

[damntexdem]

8. Because profitable faux healthcare is very profitable ...

and a small portion of those profits go to buy politicians of both parties ... err, donations to political campaigns of both parties.

[annabanana]

9. Beholden to the HMOs, Insurance Industry & Big Pharma. .

I believe the lobby for these players is bigger than any except the Big Arms Dealers...

[LWolf]

10. It's a principled person's dream.

Your candidates, outside of Dennis Kucinich, are part of the problem. Which is one reason why he's the only one of the pack that can earn my vote at this point in time.

[rucky]

11. I have con$idered many po$$ibilities...

but haven't a clue.

[Totally Committed]

14. K-Street Lobbyist $$$, membership in corporatist entities, the need to get re-elected,

the need to raise $$$ to get re-elected, allegience to all the "Bigs" (Big Medicine, Big Pharma, Big Insurance) over their allegience to their constituenies.... I dunno???

But it does have some thing to do with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and lots of it. Screw us and the horses we ride to the voting booths on.

TC

[fwiff]

15. Because they're scared of being falsely branded as 'socialist'

One big reason may be that the right has been so successful since the '80's as demonizing any truly progressive policies that they don't want to be saddled with a label.

They want to present themselves as generalists and moderates- supposedly, appealing to the masses means not taking assertive stands they cannot later back down from.

If SICKO is anywhere near as successful and poignant as I think it may be, the Dems could actually make it into a central issue- and define the debate in comparison to the system as it exists now, and the demonstrated success of all 'leader' countries.

[rocktivity]

19. Follow the money

Too many of them are being funded by Big Pharma. Money trumps wellness sometimes.

:headbang:
rocknation

[flaminbats]

20. somebody makes a profit..even under the Canadian system!

if doctors, nurses, or drug companies don't make money..then why provide health care?

under the Kucinich plan, the ones who don't continue to take our money are the insurance companies..but why should they?

[illinoisprogressive]

21. the change over is going to be huge and difficult. It will have to be done by increments.

[mitchum]

22. Whores love $$$$$$$$$

[OHdem10]

27. The companies (businesses) involved in HealthCare

Industry pay for the candidates campaigns and parties.

Follow the Money in DC and unfortunately you will find
the answer to most anything you wish to know.

[Stop Cornyn]

28. Part of the reason is that the for-profit heath care industry is a huge part of our economy and we

need a single-payer universal health care system but adopting that system overnight would put a huge sector of the economy out of business and would throw many people out of work.

We need to bite the bullet, but the political costs will not be minimal.

By far, Kucinich has the best health care plan, but there is not sufficient political will to pass his plan.

Edwards plan is, by far, the second best plan. While Edwards does not eliminate the for-profit heath care industry in one step, his plan does combine the second best short-term improvements and also lays down the tracks for the eventual elimination of the for-profit heath care industry.

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.

The whole discussion is well worth reading: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/article/38815/in-a-crowded-field-edwards-health-plan-sets-him-apart/

[ProudDad]

42. EDWARD'S PLAN IS SHIT!!!!

And here's why!!!

"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."

He requires "health insurance" - NOT HEALTH CARE!!! He would CRIMINALIZE folks who can't afford "health insurance" just like that FUCK arnold in California...

He keeps the 30% overhead for the leaches in the corporate insurance industry...

His fucking plan won't COVER ME it would just make me a fucking CRIMINAL 'cause I CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE AT ANY PRICE!!!! I'm on Social Security -- a small fixed income that barely makes it.

His plan keeps the current "health insurance" scheme that NEVER covers everything, always costs the patient out of pocket, and retains the paradigm that when patient care is balanced against PROFIT, patient care loses.

There's a good word for that -- SHIT!!!


"By far, Kucinich has the best health care plan, but there is not sufficient political will to pass his plan."

The right plan is already available and proven -- HR676 - Medicare FOR ALL who wants it...

There will never be "sufficient political will" until you quit supporting bullshit like Edward's plan and push the RIGHT SOLUTION...

[Stop Cornyn]

58. You didn't read the article, did you? You are mistaken in nearly each assumption you make about the

Edwards health care plan.

1. The plan does not "CRIMINALIZE folks who can't afford 'health insurance.'"

2. Edwards is not "just like that FUCK arnold in California" if you mean are trying to suggest that their plans are the same.

3. If you "CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE AT ANY PRICE!!!!" because your "on Social Security -- a small fixed income that barely makes it" then you are wrong that "His fucking plan won't COVER" you and you are also wrong that the Edwards plan would make you "a fucking CRIMINAL."

4. The health care plan does not keep "the current 'health insurance' scheme that NEVER covers everything."

5. The Edwards plan does not "always costs the patient out of pocket."

6. Finally, the plan does not "retains the paradigm that when patient care is balanced against PROFIT."

Here's the overview of plan itself: http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

Here's the article which explains the plan: http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070509-health-plan/

[Czolgosz]

63. That's a great article

[Sapere aude]

29. How well are doctors paid in single payer systems?

It seems to me the ones who will take the biggest hit are the medical providers.

[tammywammy]

31. I was wondering that as well

hopefully someone here knows

[Vinca]

48. My husband found this Canadian web site that gives all kinds

of statistics about their health care system, including salaries. On another post someone here who is a physician mentioned their pay and, according to the Canadian figures, the docs north of the border are doing better. There's another interesting statistic somewhere on the site that shows Canadian doctors who used to migrate to places like the U.S. either staying put or returning to Canada. If I was a health care provider I'd be thrilled to go single payer and get rid of all the BS.
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=AR_82_E

[iamjoy]

33. I've Heard Mixed Things

I've heard that providers there are paid by the hour, not the patient. Here, most doctors are paid by the patient. So you spend maybe 10 minutes with them.

BUT, my Dad is a retired pharmacist and he personally knows a lot of doctors and other providers who are no longer taking Medicare or Medicaid patients because the compensation sucks and the paperwork requirements are horrific. Some aren't even taking ANY insurance because they don't feel the negotiated rates are fair. The patient can file a claim with their insurance, and as long as it isn't an HMO, get some money back.

It's anecdotal, so take it as you will. And it could make the case either way - in a single payer system, would the government pay enough to make it worth their while? On the other hand, if we were on a single payer system, the providers wouldn't really have a choice, now would they? Besides, unlike insurance companies, the government presumably wouldn't be trying to profit, so might offer better compensation rates. OTOH, I don't think Medicare/Medicaid prices are that favorable to providers.

I think if we moved to a single payer system, we would see two things with providers

1) A lot of retirements initially, especially providers who are close anyway. Then it would level off

2) Providers offering "boutique medicine" outside government compensation rates. This would be 100% out of pocket, possibly with no opportunity for reimbursement (depending on the policy the government develops). It would be for the very rich

[ProudDad]

44. Aw, the poor little docs

will have to limp along on $250K per year for a surgeon instead of the $1M + they now "make"...

Poor widdiw docs...

--------

Seriously, most Docs don't make millions and they are the minority of overworked and underpaid Health Care Professionals (like my partner - the Registered Nurse) and would LOVE to practice medicine, health promotion and patient care instead of having insurance corporations telling them how to do their jobs. They'd probably be happy to get rid of the 30% overhead it costs them to do all the paperwork and chase down insurance payments from the health insurance mafia...and the mountains of paperwork they have to do to cover their corporate master's asses according to the dictates of medical industry lawyers...

I'm also sure that medical providers would be overjoyed to have the paradigm shift from the profit motive being the driving force behind the health care industry to the model of patient care being paramount.

Get the facts!!!

http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/what.php

http://www.healthcareforall.org/ (SB840 is California's version of HR676)

http://www.massnurses.org/single_payer/index.htm

and many other movements in the country...

[EndElectoral]

34. It's very disturbing, but revealing that most are bought

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

35. No campaign finance reform n/t

[robcon]

36. Profit-free healthcare would be a huge mistake.

There is nothing like a bureaucratic monopoly to really screw things up.

[tkmorris]

39. Hmmmm

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.


1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America


Yep. Huge mistake.

[ProudDad]

45. Ah, the lunatic right chimes in on the subject with a Faux News Talking Point (n/t)

[Enthusiast]

51. There is already a huge

There is already a huge bureaucratic monopoly directing our health care right now. It's the private insurance industry. If you are in favor of their continued abuse of the American citizen you must work in the insurance industry. Medical insurance is a completely useless institution. They take our money and perform no useful function other than to intentionally obfuscate things and deny care.

[unkachuck]

37. I think....

....it's because most politicians are people of wealth and believe in the American Corporate Dream: "Screw the little guy as often and deep as possible."

....most dead people I knew (irrespective of age) gave up most of their assets to the healthcare industry during the last few months of their lives....

....rather than allowing most of your wealth to pass easily to your heirs, the corporate healthcare system not only is over-priced, but is designed to suck back your lifes savings at the very end; the one last, grand, corporate plunder....

[Sgent]

38. Personally

I think the Canadian system is a horrible example. Only slightly better than the NHS in the UK.

The best run health care systems are in France and Germany -- both of which allow private insurance. They heavily restrict them, but it seems leaving a profit motive increases efficiency, availability of care, and overall results of the healthcare system.

Wyden's plan is the only one I've seen that I support enthusiastically.

I also have another issue -- how many years will it take to achieve Universal healthcare under a single payer style vs using the existing insurance mechanism? Its my belief that it will take much longer to achieve a single payer system due to political issues, and I think its morally wrong to let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or at least better).

[ProudDad]

46. I'll make you a little bet

You help us get HR676 passed by January '09 and I'll bet you that over 1/2 of the nation's people will opt out of the for profit health insurance mafia into Medicare for All by the year 2012...

How much you wanna bet?

HR676 gives us a viable CHOICE and is the health insurance mafia giant killer we need...


On Edit:

Remember that in France and Germany there is a different power balance between the people, government and corporations than there is here in the U.S. of A. In France, the people have no problem flooding the streets if their hard won rights are infringed upon. In France, the government can HEAVILY regulate the insurance companies that are involved in their health care system because in France the workers have more power than the corporations...and the corporations are not "persons".

Do you really think that their system could work here where the corporations have ALL OF THE POWER and the people nearly none??? Do you really think the health insurance mafia would allow the regulators to constrict their "right to profit" the way the French can theirs?

Nope, we have to perform an end around on the insurance leeches -- eliminate them entirely -- and HR676 is the beginning!!!

[FreeStateDemocrat]

40. Sold-out corporate whores.

[ItNerd4life]

43. Because they don't know how to sell a universal plan.

Kucinich's way of selling the plan is also wrong. IMO.

I think we should sell the plan not on cost/marketplace but on emergency services. We have police and fire departments readily available for emergency services. Healthcare is no different, many cases are emergency services. Healthcare should be treated and funded in the same manner as police and fire departments are.

[ProudDad]

47. Gee, I didn't know that the MSM allowed DK to "sell the plan"?

I haven't heard a peep on the media (of course, I don't watch the evening news or even much cable news).

When is he allowed to do that?

What is Dennis' "way of selling the plan" that's so wrong?

[antigop]

50. According to opensecrets.org -- top 20 recipients of insurance money in 2006

http://opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=F09&cycle=2006

[Totally Committed]

52. And, that list would be:

1
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Senate
$477,906

2
Lieberman, Joe (I-CT)
Senate
$411,594

3
McGavick, Michael (R-WA)
Senate
$385,047

4
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Senate
$381,730

5
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Senate
$349,786

6
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Senate
$327,791

7
Pryce, Deborah (R-OH)
House
$317,849

8
Johnson, Nancy L (R-CT)
House
$317,100

9
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Senate
$276,545

10
Talent, James M (R-MO)
Senate
$275,686

11
Kennedy, Mark (R-MN)
Senate
$244,086

12
Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND)
House
$242,344

13
Dodd, Christopher J (D-CT)
Senate
$240,850

14
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Senate
$233,825

15
Allen, George (R-VA)
Senate
$216,686

16
Corker, Bob (R-TN)
Senate
$199,175

17
Carper, Tom (D-DE)
Senate
$189,320

18
Cantor, Eric (R-VA)
House
$187,150

19
Kelly, Sue (R-NY)
House
$187,027

20
Bachus, Spencer (R-AL)
House
$182,050

TC

[Enthusiast]

53. Hillary Clinton is right up there!

This is news to me. Okay, I will no longer support her. I will support no candidate that is in favor of giving the insurance industry a cut of the action. No more status quo. baby!

[pitohui]

55. fear and the need to raise money to run a campaign EOM

.

[LordJFT]

60. because some democrats realize that capitalism isn't always bad