The Problem with the Health Care Plans (a symptom of a greater problem).

[Milo_Bloom]

Somewhere along the line, I fear, the Democrats have forgotten what campaigning is all about and the release of these health care plans illustrates the problem PERFECTLY.

Democrats are generally considered to be to the left. Republicans to the right.

The "left" position on health care is that health care is a basic human right and everyone deserves to be treated equally when it comes to basic human rights. This country was founded upon the concepts of "Life, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness" When you look at all our founding documents as a whole, they are based on the concept that no individual has a superior right over another to life, liberty of the pursuit of happiness" Life = health, liberty = civil rights, pursuit of happiness = freedom, to dumb it way down. So I think one could easily argue that that health care is guaranteed to the people of this country in our founding documents.

The "right" position on health care is that health care is a privilege. The concepts of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness mean different things. Life = No one has the right to kill you, Liberty = The government doesn't have the right to take your money for the benefit of others and Pursuit of happiness = You have the absolute right to get as much stuff as possible.

Following these basic concepts, it makes sense that the Left would argue for single payer universal not for profit health care and the right would argue for health care goes to the people who can afford it. Makes sense in a twisted way, right?

NOTE: I am going to generalize positions here to illustrate a point.

In politics, compromises are often reached based on the amount someone believes in a issue. When one side cares about an issue more than another, the compromise will tilt toward that side. (The right cares about gun ownership much more than the left cares about ridding the world of guns, so we have limited gun control) (The left cares about protecting the elderly more than the right cares about keeping that additional amount in their paycheck, therefore we have social security), etc.

The idea in campaigning is to present your CORE BELIEFS to your party and express that this is what I am going to fight for. It is understood in politics that compromises are often reached in the name of progress. It is expected that each side will move off their position, holding onto the things they care about most and giving on the things that don't matter to them.

Now comes the problem.

The democrats (with the exception of Kucinich) are all STARTING from the compromise position. Rather than arguing from a position of equal health care as a basic human right, they accept that people with more money will receive superior care. They have set up positions that pander to a system that is already broken. They pander to companies who make profit from the suffering of others. When you start from this position, it's already over. You've lost the battle, because you gave up your strongest argument. Equal health care is no longer a basic human right... it is something for sale to the highest bidder.

So what is the result? The middle becomes the "left" and the right stays where it is. The "compromise" becomes a position somewhere between the middle and the right, instead of between the left and the right.

If we are negotiating a price for a widget and you are asking 100, but knowing you will accept 50 and my first offer is 50, you are now probably not going to accept less than 75, because you know my starting offer was less than I am willing to pay.

Unfortunately, this isn't limited to health care, but it is the greatest symptom of the problem.

We have the moral superiority on the Health Care issue. 47 Million people uninsured gives us the right to expose this broken health care system to the light of day. If we start from the compromise position AND wind up with some further compromise we have lost entirely. The 47 million (or enough of them) will be moved into a broken system and receive inferior health care. Decisions will be made by bureaucrats and not doctors and the issue will go away. Why? Because it will appear to be fixed, the same way unemployment is fixed. As long as we don't count people unemployed for more than a year and people who had to take jobs sweeping at McDonald's, the unemployment numbers look just dandy and no one pays attention. If the # of uninsured is suddenly 3 million with 50 million people receiving crappy health care, NO ONE WILL CARE the same way NO ONE CARES when we talk about the number of people UNDEREMPLOYED.

Either these candidates believe that equal health care is a basic human right or they do not. And the current positions suggest to me that they do not.

How the hell are we ever going to win, when we keep starting the debate from a compromise position?

[redqueen]

1. ...

:thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

2. Kucinich and his 2% are ROARING to the lead

Perhaps you see where your thinking has gone awry.

[Milo_Bloom]

3. ????

The reason Kucinich isn't more popular has NOTHING to do with this issue.

The problem is that the major candidates have already lost the battle.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. sandandsea is mistaking what "win" means here.

At least I think that's the problem.

[sandnsea]

15. The people don't want single payer

thunk thunk thunk. They don't want it. If they did, they'd support Dennis in his quest to get it. It's rather common sense, you see?

[Milo_Bloom]

16. Wrong.

The people WANT single payer. Just no one who they want to vote for is offering it.

[sandnsea]

18. Two Percent - TWO

If they wanted this, they would hail the person who was bringing it to them. They DON'T WANT IT. They believe in capitalism. They believe paying people well attracts the brightest minds. Just like we say about paying teachers. People do not want to risk the medical advancements that the capitalist system has brought them. They just don't. They will accept a public/private partnership, but they will never replace this system with single payer. We're going to end up with mandates and tax credits if some people on the left don't pull their heads out and fight for a better compromise than that.

[Milo_Bloom]

19. Amazingly faulty reasoning.

So by your reasoning, people also DON'T believe in bringing the troops home immediately, right? Because Kucinich and Paul are at 2% in the polls.

In realitly, your claim is a bunch of crap. People DO WANT IT.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=more_than_a_prayer_for_single_payer

"While the single-payer approach fares extremely well in polling (67 percent of Americans in a 2005 BusinessWeek poll supported a system akin to Canada's or Britain's), policymakers and pundits dismiss this option out of hand. "

"Polls of doctors in Minnesota (Feb., 2007) and Massachusetts (2004) both show a remarkable 64 percent favoring a single-payer plan."


Just no one who they consider credible is willing to offer it to them.

[sandnsea]

20. That's right

they don't want defunding or a withdrawal that ignores any negative consequences of that action.

And they don't want a single payer system to replace the system we have now. "akin" to is not "replace". As I said, they will accept some sort of public/private program - "akin to". That is why the subsidized insurance and medicare buy-ins are the solution. Details. People think about them. They know replacing the current system with single payer would not be easy and not be a panacea. They will not go for it. A stepping stone to get there is the answer.

And again, we're going to get stupid tax credits which will put off real reform for another 20 years. The single payer people have got to wake up and help us get something better than that.

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Now you have gone of the deep end.

People DO want a withdrawl and people DO want single payer health care. That is just reality which proves out when you ask the question without bias.

By the way, Akin To does not mean along with, it means SIMILAR TO. So when you ask people do you want a system AKIN TO Canada, you are asking do you want a system SIMILAR to canada, not "along with our current system" or whatever you want to try and twist it into.

The "step" approach is a non-starter. All it does is take the issue out of the public eye and kill millions of people due to crappy health care over the next 50 years.

Its this simple. either you believe

A) Equal health care is a human right that should be given to all citizens

OR

B) Health care is a privledged that should be dolled out based on personal wealth.


It is clear what camp you are in.

Let me make this 100% crystal clear to you, I am only going to vote for a candidate who believes A. That's it. If they are forced to comrprise down the road, that is politics, but if someone doesn't accept A as reality, the issue is already lost and there is no point to bothering.

[sandnsea]

23. details details details

The details matter. Just like the way we withdraw gets different amounts of support than blanket withdrawal. The details matter.

I am in a lousy lousy mood. Health care is very important to me. I will debate it with you another day, I promise. Today just isn't it, and I have to a couple errands to run.

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Its not the details, its the way you load the question.

"Do you support immediate withdrawl if it will cause the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi's and possibly turn Iraq into a Theocracy dangerous to the US"?

Uhhh, NO.

"Do you support immediate withdrawl if it meant saving the lives of American troops who would die in a losing struggle"

Uhhh, YES.

"Do you support a allowing the government to control your health care decisions?"

Uhhh, NO.

"Do you support a single payer system in which every member of society receives equal care and you can go to any doctor you choose?"

Uhhh, YES.

Either Equal Access to Health care is a right or it isn't. There is no middle ground for the start of the debate.

[ProudDad]

13. Right, Big Money

a lot of that BIG MONEY from the health insurance mafia and big pharma is roaring to the lead...

Way to go Big Corporate Money!!!! :sarcasm:

You like that???

[Milo_Bloom]

25. I would hate to think...

That candidates are selling out our health care just for money.

[ProudDad]

26. Well, for absolute sure

one of them is!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3531122

Total sell out!!!

[Milo_Bloom]

28. I would prefer to think...

That are selling out for votes, rather than for money.


The real problem is I don't WANT their plans, because it takes the health care debate off the table and kills more people in the long run due to insufficient health care.

[againes654]

4. Beautifully put

I could not have said it better myself. Kucinich for President!!!!!!

[bunkerbuster1]

5. Excellent points, and you're right--we won't win this way, negotiating from a weak spot.

By the way, by "win" I'm assuming you mean this specific issue, not the Presidency itself.

If we were half as disciplined and on-message as the Goopers, we'd be pushing for a single-payer system, calling it "Medicare for Everyone" or suchlike.

[Milo_Bloom]

7. Exactly!

I am talking about win on a per issue basis.

You can do it with almost any issue.

Iraq war Left = Leave Now Right = Stay Forever

Compromise = Phased redeployment.

When you start from phased redeployment, the comrpromise moves further right.

[Adelante]

8. I agree

"STARTING from the compromise position"

We should be necking down to there, if that's what it takes, rather than from there.

[Cameron27]

9. I'm with you,

don't start with a compromise, especially on health care. Every one of these plans is going to get cut to ribbons anyway, so it doesn't help to start out weak.

[Cleita]

10. I haven't seen "Sicko" yet, but I believe MM takes the position

not of the uninsured but of those who think they have health insurance but when in need of health care suddenly find out they have very little return for what they had paid for. This is the problem with our privatized system. It insures the healthy and throws away those who need health care, the sick. To even entertain the idea of including these parasites in a national health care system shows to me what trouble our country really is in politically.

[Milo_Bloom]

14. DING DING DING DING!

Absolutely and that is the problem and, I believe, why Michael Moore made the film he made.

If we just get these 47 million "insured" many people will consider the problem solved. Michael Moore bypassed that step and went straight to the heart of the problem. The system itself is broken. Bringing everyone into "the system" doesn't fix the system, it just gives a lot more people really crappy health care solutions.

I don't understand how any of these plans deal with the reality that all health care solutions are not created equal, or even REMOTELY the same.

In fact, you don't know the quality of your health care solution until you get sick and test it, so how can a consumer make a really informed decision in a "mandatory" insurance system?

Insurance company A won't pay for procedure X, but will pay for Y

Insurance company B won't pay for procedure Y, but will pay for X

Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you whether X or Y will be best for you, you can't make an informed decision.

[sandnsea]

21. Obama's plan addresses that

Every insurance company will have to offer at least as much coverage as his federal buy-in program would have. He creates an agency for the purpose of monitoring insurance, the National Health Insurance Exchange would guarantee all insurance "would have to provide comprehensive benefits, issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums."

[Milo_Bloom]

27. WooHooo More Insurance red tape in health care. no thanks.

[ProudDad]

11. K&R

If I could only do 40 recommends!!!

"The democrats (with the exception of Kucinich) are all STARTING from the compromise position. Rather than arguing from a position of equal health care as a basic human right, they accept that people with more money will receive superior care."

Drives me fucking NUTS!!!!

[ProudDad]

12. Imagine the allies among Medicare Recipients

They not only would eviscerate any candidate who tried to take it away from them they would be strong, loud and VOTING allies for Medicare coverage for their children and grandchildren.

Anyone who settles for less than Universal Single-Payer is a delusional coward...

[slipslidingaway]

17. Kucinich keeps telling us this is a fight within the Dem party...

The top three candidates should state whether they believe a single payer system is in the best interests of our nation or not. If they answer yes then that should be their starting point.

Agree 100% thanks, if you want something your opening bid should not already include your first compromise...K&R.


http://www.dennis4president.com/go/newsroom/kucinich%3a-growing-uninsured-population-reflects-failure-of-political-leaders/


“The fault lies at the doorstep of the White House, the floor of the U.S. Congress, and with the leadership of both political parties,” Kucinich said. “In fact,” he added, “the Democratic Party itself must bear a large part of the responsibility for this national crisis, and the Democratic candidates for President have a moral obligation to be honest and direct with the voters about how they plan to deal with this issue – something they have failed to do so far.” He singled out front-running Democratic candidates, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator Barack Obama, and former U.S. Senator John Edwards for “their failure to exhibit the kind of leadership on this issue that the American people deserve from someone seeking the Presidency.”


“...This is a crisis, and it requires a dramatic and fundamental change in the way this nation finances health care and provides health care coverage,” Kucinich said. “and it is a scandal that most of my Democratic colleagues seeking the nomination for the Presidency are putting forth half-measures, flawed strategies, and highly suspect schemes in the name of reform.


...In 2000, Kucinich took the plan to the Gore-Leiberman Democratic Platform Committee for inclusion in the party’s platform, “and they told me that the insurance and pharmaceutical interests were too powerful to challenge.” In 2004, he took the plan to the Kerry-Edwards Democratic Platform Committee, “and I got the same answer,” Kucinich said.

“Now, we have the leading Democratic candidates for President engaged in a fraudulent debate about which of their health care plans is the most ‘universal’ when, in fact, those plans keep the for-profits in control and poised to profit even more if they begin receiving federal subsidies and incentives to reduce premiums to make insurance more affordable to more people.”

Questions should be raised, Kucinich said, about whether the candidates lack the courage and conviction to tackle the for-profit health care industry or their relationships with those interests “are too cozy and too lucrative.”

[eridani]

29. A better option than either "privilege" or "right" is

--health care as a PUBLIC GOOD, like transportation infrastructure. It would be a little silly to say that roads and transit are rights, but they are definitely public goods.