Why is it assumed to be SOOO difficult to get universal coverage, let alone single-payer?

[redqueen]

Are people assuming we'll lose seats in congress?

Are they assuming that dems in congress will refuse to support it? Why would they?

[EFerrari]

1. Because the people who buy our candidates do so

for the express purpose of stopping these efforts that might force them to stop bleeding us dry and withholding healthcare?

[rateyes]

2. Special Interest groups called

insurance companies, who give a helluva lot of money to politicians. And, excuse me if I say "bullshit" to those who say that money doesn't influence their votes....I'm not calling any names, but her initials are Hillary Rodham Clinton. (among others).

[ananda]

3. Because corporations, big pharm, and private insurers don't want it.

It would mean loss of revenue, deprivatization, and regulation.. i.e., something
that would benefit the havelesses and not the havemores.

[redqueen]

6. So?

If we have a Dem congress... what's their excuse? It'll cut into their $$$$?

I was bothering to watch some of the debate last night and hearing some of these people talking about how we'd have to compromise?

WHY would we need to do that?

What did the repukes ever compromise on when they held all the power? :shrug:

[CTyankee]

79. Hillary said on GMA that when her team asked people about their own private health care plan

they got a clear majority who LIKED what they had. She said she was surprised to hear that. However, I have heard this from people I know as well. What they have, they don't want to give up for something they don't know much about. They've heard scary stories about "socialized" medicine and they can be just plain uninformed about how a single payer system works.

Perhaps her strategy is to give all the options, including Medicare, and when they all compete and Medicare wins people over, the health insurance industry will seek their "market share" shrink, their revenues plummet, and look for another enterprise. That's assuming a very well funded Medicare plan or it won't work.

[redqueen]

80. She's spreading puke talking points.

Nobody is forced to switch to medicare for all... if they like paying for executives' mansions then that's fine, they can do that.

Hillary's plan lets them buy in to the congressional plan... is that medicare? Or a choice between few insurance companies' packages?

[CTyankee]

87. First, I agree about single payer. I'm for it. The congressional plan

is probably pretty good but we don't know what will be the new Medicare or the new congressional plan will be at thispoint.

This is a wait and see game. So I'm doing just that before I render a final judgment...

[redqueen]

93. It will be medicare for all. Medicare is well-established.

Is someone introducing a new medicare system? Is Hillary planning to change the congressional plan after she gets in office?

The rest of the civilized world has single-payer universal healthcare. We shouldn't have to wait any longer.

[CTyankee]

100. I agree. Medicare is now a respected "brand name" with voters.

But I can see the strategy behind letting the private insurers compete with Medicare because when Medicare wins, as you and I are certain it will, the private insurers can't say they didn't have their chance. We can say it was good old competition in the marketplace and they had their shot, now goodbye. The right wing will have a hard time saying that competition in the free market is wrong!

Only one caveat: we simply MUST see to it that Medicare for all is well funded. Any single payer system can and will fail if it is starved of funding. Margaret Thatcher tried that in Britain and said "You see, we told you so." The Labor party members wouldn't let her get away with that!

[redqueen]

101. I don't see that any of that will be a problem...

IF we have a dem in the WH and dem majority in the senate. A filibuster-proof majority would guarandamn tee it... and if it didn't then we'd need to take a long, hard look at those dems that stood in the way.

Thanks for this discussion!

:hi:

[Telly Savalas]

109. Forcing everybody to switch to medicare for all is what single-payer is.

[redqueen]

110. No, it isn't. n/t

[Telly Savalas]

112. Yes, it is. Put the two words together "single" "payer"

Not "multiple payer" whereby both the government and private insurers pay for similar medical procedures, but "single payer" where the government is the sole payer of medical bills for the list of procedures which it covers.

[Armstead]

12. One disagreement -- Many Corporations DO want it

That's one reason this stelemate is so frustrating.

The present healthcare system has gotten so bad that many corporate leaders have joined those who say we need a basic fix towards universal coverage. They are being reamed by the present employer-based private insurance system, along with the rest of us.

The popular will is there. The politicians, unfortunately, are AWOL.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. There's a sci-fi story in there --

Heavy manufacturers - auto, steel, etc., - hire Blackwater and initiate open warfare with insurance companies, because the insurance companies are keeping them from being competitive with foreign competitors, and hiring mercs is cheaper than paying protection money...

or something like that.

[redqueen]

34. "The popular will is there." Are you sure?

LOTS of people here seem to be convinced it isn't there.

*sigh*

[Armstead]

82. Yes...The disagreements are over specifics

I am not including the far right "I'll die before I submit to any form of socialist health care" freepers in the popular will.

Not unanimous, but I know a goodly number of otherwise conservative people who agree that the systemn needs to be changed.

[redqueen]

86. Yeah... after I responded to you, someone posted a rasmussen poll

clear majority of dem & independent voters support it.

So... we're just getting lies & excuses so they can keep raking in the $$$$. *sigh*

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. My take on the problem

1) Public support still isn't quite at a fever pitch yet. People just aren't convinced yet that the government is the solution. That time is coming, however, probably within 5 years.

2) Yes, I do think we'd lose some seats. Such a plan would cost a boatload and would make a significant tax increase inevitable. You know how well THAT goes over...

3) The problem isn't Dems so much as the plain, bold faced fact that there's no way we're getting 60 votes in the Senate. Nor would we get the 290 votes in the House and 66 votes in the Senate needed to override the veto that would absolutely happen. There is exactly zero chance of universal health care with a Republican President, and that actually drops below zero with Bush in charge. I know that's not even possible, but really, the Bush administration knows no human limits with how asinine it can be. Even with a Democrat in the White House, we need a filibuster proof Senate. That's the only way it's going to happen. And there's no point putting a plan out there to be shot full of holes until the conditions are right for it to actually have a chance.

[rurallib]

8. That 60 vote bullshit is getting to me

We are looking at a congress that should be even more Democratic, so I hope they will change that totally idiotic rule. Secondly I would hope that whatever Democrat becomes president would not veto such a bill.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. It is NOT an idiotic rule.

That "idiotic" rule is the only thing that has saved this country from complete mob rule. Just because it is not working in our favor right now, that does not mean it should be obliterated.

I also hope a Democratic President wouldn't veto it, and I doubt that he or she would. The problem is beating the special interests in Congress much more so than a President.

[rurallib]

23. I don't think filibustering is bad

It is just reducing it to the question - do we have 60 votes? No -end of discussion. I would like to see some debate - even filibustering on many of these issues. At least we would have a record of what the arguments are.
BTW - my tone in my previous response may have seemed a bit combative. I apologize for that. When I reread what I wrote i felt I may have sounded like I was attacking you.
Special interests - oh boy. RFK,jr. said that the biggest impediment to environmental change is campaign financing and the media. I am sure that is true for all issues.

[backscatter712]

44. Abolish the virtual filibuster.

The GOP shouldn't be able to kill a bill by simply threatening to filibuster. If they want to raise the threshold to approve a bill from 50 to 60 votes, they need to grab their phone books and Foley catheters and game the system the old fashioned way. Interrupt all other Senate business, hog the floor by speaking, and make it a literal battle of endurance. And just doing it for 24 hours isn't good enough - they should have to hog the podium for weeks, and if they stop speaking for even a few seconds, they lose the floor and the bill gets an up-or-down vote!

[ProudDad]

46. I agree

the filibuster is a GOOD idea but in order to invoke it the filibusterer must actually DO IT...

This "gentleman's agreement" shit is just that, bullshit...

[backscatter712]

55. Gentleman's agreements only work

when both sides are composed of gentlemen...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

58. We've got other things to do.

Such as passing spending bills.

[redqueen]

10. What difference does public support make?

There's public support for ending the occupation... you don't see them doing that?

A significant tax increase?! We're paying more than we need to as it is... this won't increase costs.

On point three, gee it sure is funny how a filibuster is actually used by the other party.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. And Republicans are going to pay a price for Iraq.

Democrats passed the exact bill Americans wanted - funding the troops with a timetable for withdrawal - and the President vetoed it. Republicans will pay a toll for that when all is said and done.

Like it or not, it will be a significant tax increase. I am not squeamish about it, and I also know that whatever is raised in taxes will be more than compensated by not having to pay for healthcare. But I'm not, nor are you, the average moran citizen. THEY just see the bottom line - higher taxes.

Once again, with regards to the filibuster, you can bet that Republicans will pay for using it. They have a lot of vulnerable Senate seats and they will find themselves perilously close to a filibuster-proof Senate if they continue to stay the course.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. And when it is explained that while their taxes are going up by

$2000/yr, they will no longer be paying $900/mo through their employers for health insurance?
That their insurance won't lapse if they leave their jobs to go back to school or take a different position?
That they won't be paying $1000/yr in deductibles on top of paying for health insurance?

Single payer is CHEAPER, more efficient, and what is paid in taxes is not buying some CEO a summer home on Nantucket.

I think MOST people can understand that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. I don't have that much faith in people.

I really don't. I hope you're right. But beyond that, support for single payer needs to be ramped up to offset any idiocy related to taxes.

[redqueen]

27. How can we ramp it up when the most visible democrats cower

before their insurance industry benefactors?

Where's the leadership?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Who's cowering?

I know you think otherwise, but Kucinich is not the only one touting some kind of health care reform plan. Furthermore, the push has to come from the people, not the other way around. The people have to start pushing a lot harder and start making it their top issue. Otherwise, it's going to languish the same way education funding does.

[redqueen]

32. It won't come from the people

because all the people hear are the dems telling them it can't be done, that they have to keep insurance in the picture.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. You've got the system wrong.

The way it works is that the PEOPLE lead. Politicians follow. The surge HAS to come from the people. Someone has to be in place to counter the arguments from the insurance companies, and I've yet to see any such "Association for Universal Health Care" step up to the plate to make it happen. The tail doesn't wag the dog.

[redqueen]

40. Well since Reagan and Clinton I fucked up the media...

we're fucked... because the masses trust teevee news, and teevee news is doing the same thing as our dems (can't go against conventional wisdom... we need that insurance MONEY!)

At least Michael Moore and a handful of organizations have tried... at least a few have a fighting spirit and are willing to lead.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. Yes, they did fuck up the media, and in turn, our country.

But it's not hopeless. We're MUCH further along in this debate now than we were when Hillary put out her first plan, back in 93. It'll take time - I think another 5 or so years - but it will happen.

[redqueen]

54. Hey... check this out please? New poll on health care...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1921210&mesg_id=1921210

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. I've got to think that's a higher percentage than it was back in 1994.

We're getting there, painfully slowly.

[redqueen]

59. Looks like a clear majority to me.

But still, nothing from the 'top tier' dems on that little factoid.

Hmmmmmm...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

64. Clear majority?!

Since when is 44% is a clear majority? And only 52% claim lowering health care costs is a top priority - hardly a mandate.

[redqueen]

66. Since repukes will never be on our side on this,

I take them out of the equation.

"The latest survey finds that Democrats favor free health care for all by a 59% to 21% margin. Republicans are opposed by a 64% to 25% margin. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 46% favor free health care and 35% are opposed."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

72. Well, some of them are going to have to be on our side.

Until we get more FAR more Democrats than Republicans in this country anyway.

[redqueen]

73. Why?

Do dems in congress worry about repukes not voting for them?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

76. What does that have to do with anything?

The votes aren't there - and that means we need Republican support or fewer Republicans in the first place.

[redqueen]

77. I'm sorry if I seem stupid...

but I don't know what you mean by "the votes aren't there"... unless you only mean the votes to override a filibuster.

That's the ONLY reason I can see this getting stuck... and even that's a weak excuse when the repukes managed to scare the dems out of filibustering damn near anything.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

90. You're treating it as if the conditions are identical.

They aren't. Republicans controlled the White House when they were in the majority. The bully pulpit is a very powerful tool, especially combined with controlling Congress as well. However, filibusters aren't the only thing you have to do deal with - there's also the veto. So the two of those combined really amount to a lot more than just a flimsy filibuster threat. There's actual power behind them, unlike the ones we used when we were in the minority.

[redqueen]

96. You're acting as if I expect this to be done with this congress

and this president. I don't... no one should. If they do they are delusional.

This will only happen after we get a dem in the WH... the only thing I can see stopping us is a filibuster. The veto won't be a problem. Unless they steal another one, which is entirely possible.

[ProudDad]

47. Kucinich is the ONLY one who is proposing

an ACTUAL SOLUTION to the Health Care problem.

The others ALL leave the health insurance mafia and big pharma in charge of the system as the final arbiters of when, how and whether we get health care or not and how much it costs us...

And it's in their financial interests (which IS THE ONLY ONE THAT'S IMPORTANT TO THEM) to say "NOT"!

[redqueen]

19. That's how I see it as well.

Sure the media likes to keep the public ignorant... but I think as president, DK would kinda have a way to get around their BS. :)

[ProudDad]

98. I also believe that

Obama and Edwards are amenable to reasoned argument in favor of a real solution rather than their patchwork approaches but that other "one"...I doubt it...

[CTyankee]

88. People understand their OWN situation first, tho.

A coworker of mine and I were having a conversation about universal health care vs. private insurance and I made all the good arguments you cite. Then she said, "Yes, but would the government plan pay for my son's MRI?" She was hoping that her teenaged son would get a soccer scholarship to college, because she had no money for tuition. That MRI seemed essential in her goal to get that scholarship. Of course, I couldn't answer that hypothetical question, but in her own mind she had coverage under a private plan (her husband is a Teamster Union member) and it was a "bird in hand" so to speak.

I know that is an anecdotal story, but I realized that this is the kind of thinking we are up against. She is not a bad person at all and not stupid, but it is this sort of thinking that our party needs to recognize and address, not just the "good government" angle.

[Warpy]

5. Campaign contributions

They are terrified of losing those dollars from insurance and big pill.

They are terrified of losing other corporate contributions when right wingers call them socialists.

They are terrified of trying something new, even though it has been tried and proven in other countries around the globe.

They are terrified that they're going to have to take time out from fund raising to do actual work for the people of this country.

[rucky]

7. because they said so.

Why can't we get our troops out of Iraq now?

because they said so.

cynical, defeatist sons of bitches with no vision, gumption or motivation. The defeatists have never had to do anything important in their lives, because if they did, they'd know that you begin the PROCESS in its ideal form - that's what sets an idea in motion. What happens along the way may change that ideal vision, but you're still overcoming barriers to get as close to that as possible.

the cynics compromise before they even start something. that's why they're defeatist. the defeatists see the hurdles ahead of them, and immediately change course. or give up before they even start. no gumption. no motivation. no courage.

hint: you don't have to "be realistic" all the time. reality does that for you - with or without your help. and anybody who doesn't believe you can change reality needs to re-read the PNAC doctrine, because they're doing a heckova job creating their own reality and making it ours. why can't we do that with something positive?

[redqueen]

11. "why can't we do that with something positive?"

Exactly what I'm wondering...

[Desertrose]

9. I don't this it "has" to be, but there will be a fight

from all the insurance co/big pharma etc.

But I believe it can be done very quickly. Again..it has to do with the people being informed and demanding it. Could be done but as usual, the $$$ interests will muck it up.

[MH1]

18. Because we can't even get SCHIP expansion?

(without major concessions which cause purists like Kucinich to vote against it)

Let's see what happens when the veto override vote comes up on SCHIP. If it fails, there is your answer.

[redqueen]

20. Doesn't matter if he voted against it, it passed.

There was no question of whether it would pass, so maybe his vote was symbolic (as were some of the votes from the republican side on Habeas, IIRC)

Regardless, there's no worry about a veto, so...

[MH1]

21. No worry about a veto? Did Bush back off his threat?

Funny, Kerry just held a press conference with some other Dems, about Bush's threat to veto SCHIP.

And I don't think there's enough votes to override.

Initially I agreed that Kucinich's vote was symbolic, but on second thought, the closer the vote is to overriding the veto, the more likely Bush wouldn't bother. I think. In any case it would have been nice to have the override votes on the FIRST vote.

[redqueen]

24. I meant no worry about a veto on the insurance bill... if Kucinch was to win.

[MH1]

25. "If Kucinich was to win" - that would be 2009. SCHIP expires this month.

Unless this bill is passed, presumably OVER Bush's veto.

My original point was that this situation, and the possibility that we may not have the votes to override a veto, is a good demonstration of why single payer will not get passed.

[redqueen]

26. I'm talking about single-payer care. Not SCHIP. n/t

[ProudDad]

48. Nobody thinks it will be passed or signed before Jan, 2009

We all know the current pResident won't sign Single-Payer.

I want to make sure that the next pResident WILL...

There's only one Dem I know of who certainly WON'T sign it...

[MH1]

68. SCHIP?!? It damned sure BETTER be re-authorized this year.

I guess you are talking about universal health care. I agree with you that universal healthcare won't be passed before 2009. But my point was that the drama playing out now with SCHIP illustrates the fundamental problem that we have.

It will be nice if we get a prez who will sign the bill for single payer. However I am a) not sure that will happen and b) even if the prez will sign it, the congress may not pass it, because of all the corporatists there.

Which to me, is why partial measures like SCHIP are important - because they do help some people. Those partial measures do reduce suffering. And that's what it's about.

[ProudDad]

104. I'm all for SCHIP

It's the ONLY health care that my grandson has...

I'd just like to see Health Care extended to my daughter, son-in-law, my brother and me as well.

Only HR676 will do that...

There's one candidate running on the Dem side who I'm reasonably sure would NOT EVER support or sign HR676 or any Single-Payer Universal plan. The others would possibly support and/or sign it...

Be careful of partial measures. In the case of Health Care -- don't accept ANY plan that retains health insurance mafia control of the process.

[MH1]

22. Link to discussion of veto threat on SCHIP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3555071

[JerseygirlCT]

28. HUGE insurance lobby nt

[redqueen]

29. So... dems on the take...

Yeah... I just don't get why defending dems on the take is so popular around here.

:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. Because you have yet to show us where they can avoid that.

Not being on the take means severe disadvantages in campaign funding, which in turn means losing elections.

No election finance reform = continued, necessitated funding from insurance companies.

Edit: I didn't mean YOU, as in personally, but I meant more that no one has shown us how it can work.

[redqueen]

33. No one? How about every civilized country besides us?

:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. Those countries don't have a Supreme Court with lengthy precedents...

claiming that campaign donations are free speech.

[redqueen]

37. And the people are supposed to what... storm the SCOTUS?

We need *leadership* from our Dems (on this and many other issues)... and there's only ONE out there givin it wrt health care... and he gets shit on.

:banghead:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. No, the people need to lead.

You can't do anything about campaign finance reform, but you CAN beat the insurance companies by creating a groundswell of support. It will not happen without that.

[JerseygirlCT]

67. That's it -- I don't think this is only about campaign contributions

This is about a huge industry. Imagine how they're looking at the prospect of gov't run universal care. Basically, they're out of business, and a very lucrative business it's been.

That's probably a scary prospect to anyone in power now. What if they dismantle an entire industry and it doesn't work? What price will they pay -- both in campaign support, but also wrt all the people out of work?

Don't get me wrong, I think the system is a mess, and a single-payer system is the way we HAVE to go. But the implications are pretty far-reaching. And politicians tend not to be mavericks, press releases to the contrary. Safe is good, in their books. That's what gets you re-elected.

[ProudDad]

49. 'Cause that's nearly the only kind we've got?

:evilgrin:

[Capn Sunshine]

36. It's the money, honey

That's all. From a political standpoint, this is just too much too overcome. The for-profit Insurance scam must be ended , now.

[redqueen]

38. Well it seems like it won't be ended...

cause far too many are buying the meme that it can't be done.

[backscatter712]

43. The biggest thing with single-payer...

is that it will put the health insurance companies out of business.

I personally consider this to be a feature.

The health insurance companies, of course, see things differently, and they've got a lot of legalized bribery campaign contribution money, which makes them very persuasive...

[Cleita]

45. Not the people, but the Congressmen and Senators

take gobs of money from the insurance and PHARMA industry and they are afraid of losing that campaign money. It would make them underfunded in fighting Republicans. It basically turns them into political eunuchs.

[baldguy]

50. Assumed by who?

By people paid to promote that assumption.

[redqueen]

52. People on this board do it...

so... I think there's more to it than most of the dems in congress being on the take.

[ProudDad]

51. Here's the difficulty...

Taking the Temperature of the Presidential Candidates

Contributions from the Health Industry

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/sickos-for-sale/candidates/

hillary's NUMBER ONE! hillary's NUMBER ONE!!!

[ProudDad]

53. Seriously...

It's because this country is sick to the core.

This sickness is what makes this country so dangerous in the world.

It's a combination of selfish greed, calvanist blaming and hypocrisy...

We can't get too much traction with Universal Single-Payer because the propaganda has convinced the majority that people who get sick have a character flaw, that it's "every man for himself" and that "personal responsibility" trumps community.

I'm afraid that ain't gonna change soon. Sometimes, I'm afraid that it will never change until after the inevitable economic collapse of the house of cards corporate capitalist system that owns this country...

[Mass]

56. "Socialized Medicine"

:scared:

Listening the SCHIP debate right now: a very limited program for children that is supported by RW Republicans like Hatch, Lott, Corker ...

Well, we got other Republicans coming to the floor and calling that "socialized medicine", and Bush ready to veto it.

It is playing on the politics of fear and making people afraid that the government will decide for them who their doctor will be, decide what medicines they will take, ..., as if HMO and insurance companies did not decide at this point.

So be very scared. The Democrats want socialized medicine: :scared:

Hillary's program is socialized medicine. Obama's program is socialized medicine. Edwards's program is socialized medicine.

:scared::scared::scared::scared:

The commies are coming. :banghead:

And some even here are falling for that: :banghead:

[Vinca]

60. It is so NOT "socialized medicine."

They are a bunch of immoral, cruel, lying, greedy, faux Christians. The government won't own the hospitals, the goverment won't employ the doctors. IT'S A DAMN SYSTEM FOR PAYMENT!!!!!!!!!! They're driving me completely, freaking nuts.

[Mass]

61. Well. They are doing it right now on the Senate floor.

And the sad thing is that some people think it is true.

[Vinca]

62. I don't think I can watch any longer. Coburn almost made me

blow an artery my blood pressure's so high. I truly hate these people.

[redqueen]

74. Not enough people think it's true. There's just no excuse for this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1921210&mesg_id=1921210

[rasputin1952]

63. There is an argument out there that states, "you won't be allowed

to choose your physician."

This is bogus, but it sticks to people like glue.

FWIW, all people with insurance have others paying for their care. If they have a surgery that costs $50,000, they are not paying for it, others in the pool are. Everyone in that particular pool is paying for someone else's healthcare...interesting how that blows another argument out of the water.

But back to argument #1; people could choose their Primary Care Physician, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Who would stop them...Rush Limbaugh? But the insurance cabal has put it up as a fighting point...simply because they would lose 10's of billions of dollars. As an aside, almost ALL insurance companies require that you see physicians on their list if you want to utilize the maximum benefit, so essentially, they are telling you who you can and can't see for your medical situations. Another argument blown out of the water.

the 3rd argument is that , "Canadian, British and German health care systems are horrible". First off, this is not true, and secondly, who says we have to pattern universal health-care after them...the RW and the insurance companies are all i hear harping on this constantly. What normal people would do, is find the best parts of each program, incorporate them, then extrapolate upon them to come up with a plan that far exceeds what anyone would consider "normal".

The premiums paid to private insurance could easily be paid by those who wish to remain in a private system, no one would force them out of the coverage they have. but when they saw people being treated precisely like they were, for 1/10 the cost, they would save money by dropping a private plan.

All it takes is a clear mind and a positive direction for everyone to be covered medically. While some people argue this, many others die from treatable conditions and diseases; some are maimed for life; others simply suffer needlessly. "Compassionate Conservatism" quite simply sucks.

[antigop]

65. OK, let's take a count. How many people have written a LTTE to their local paper about HR 676?

I have. Anyone else?

[ProudDad]

97. Yep, got printed... (n/t)

[antigop]

107. Great! I'm submitting another. Hope it gets published! n/t

[harun]

69. Because the U.S. isn't a Democracy it is a Corporate Representative Republic (n/t)

[antigop]

70. I would like to know how many bills get 83 co-sponsors. That's how many HR 676 has in the House.

How many bills get that much support?

Second question: How do we get a companion Senate bill introduced?

[jillan]

71. Because there are people like Coburn in the US senate.

edit to add -

and they don't even think we should have Social Security or Medicare.

[antigop]

75. The Senate Dems are already refusing to support it. There is not a companion Senate bill for HR 676

No one has introduced one.

[redqueen]

78. The reason we can't have it is Dems in congress won't do it?

That seems pretty fucked up to me.

(I'm talking about 09, of course... after we get a Dem president. Hence my referring to dems saying "we have to compromise" in the debates.)

[antigop]

83. Well,how do you expect to get it, if no one introduces a bill? n/t

[redqueen]

84. I expect a senator to introduce a damn bill.

The majority of democratic and unaffiliated voters want it... so they need to stop sucking up to corporate bosses and do what every other civilized country has done.

We just need a leader to push them. Right now all the 'leaders' are too busy echoing repuke talking points about how people don't want it or it's just toooo hard.

[antigop]

85. Well,I expect a lot of things from the Dem representatives, but we aren't getting them.. n.t

[CTyankee]

89. The last time we got semi-socialized medicine was in 1965 with the creation of

Medicare and Medicaid. Why? Well, because LBJ crushed the Republican Goldwater and won overwhelmingly. Dems had the House and the Senate with big majorities. And the people, faced with rising costs for their or their elderly parents medical care, were overwhelmingly supportive.

You have no such scenario today. So the quandary is how do we get to our desirable goal of single payer. Introducing a bill in Congress is a first step, but it is just that. I think we are slowly changing opinion but it is slow. You may not like it. I may not like it. The question is what do we do? Do we throw up our hands and say "Single payer NOW or nothing"?

[redqueen]

91. Yes we do have that scenario today!

We are about to take both houses and the presidency (if we don't screw up the BEST CHANCE we've had in decades with mealy-mouthed wishy-washiness, that is)... and a majority of the NON-REPUKE public support single-payer universal care.

The bill is already introduced in the house... with over 80 co-sponsors. Which senator will stop sucking up to the insurance execs and introduce the bill in the senate?

[CTyankee]

102. Please god, I hope you are right! There is nothing I would like better!

But we aren't there quite yet. If we win this thing with the competitive process, we can move quickly to single payer.

In the meantime, electing a Dem will mean an enormous amount of energy and talent will be thrown into a nationwide educational process. But it has to be massive and pervasive. I truly believe we can do it and voters will "get it" on an even greater scale than you have cited now exists. We simply can't allow ourselves to be drowned out by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh!

[antigop]

108. Oh, oh, I know, I know!.......

Maybe we can count on sHillary????

<edit to add> or Obama? Dodd? Biden?

[antigop]

81. OK, how many of the presidential candidates have said healthcare is a human right?

Can we get anywhere until they (and the country) come to this conclusion?

[ramapo]

92. Because people don't demand it

Simple as that. There has been enough FUD generated over the past 15 years on this issue to overcome the widespread unhappiness with the existing situation.

Nobody is happy with what we have today. Not doctors, not patients, not employers. Insurance companies are very happy as are other large health related corporations.

Even though single-payer, universal coverage would be relatively simple to implement, and it is difficult to see how it could be any more expensive than what I have today, there does not exist a critical mass of voters demanding it.

So it will not happen.

[slipslidingaway]

95. People are not educated on the subject, Dennis said he would

make it a priority to educate the citizens on the subject. No other candidate believes in single payer enough to take the plan to the people.

[slipslidingaway]

94. K&R Health Care....What's Lacking Is Political Leadership!

old thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1830393

Now that all the health care plans are on the table here are a few videos that describe HR 676, Conyers/Kucinich plan with 77 cosponsors, and how Kucinich would use his platform to advance the legislation. He estimates that this would take roughly three years to implement.

All the other plans leave the wealthiest and healthiest people in our nation with the option of private insurance, those who have the most needs and who will be the most expensive to care for will be insured by the government.

Does that sound like a good plan for the government or for the private insurance companies?

[SoCalDem]

99. Because the government would have to earmark real money to pay actual expenses

for health care. As long as they have a big ole pile of non-specific money, they can spend it over and over on junk they want..

and it's not nearly as much "fun" to spend money on Uncle Ed's foot surgery as it is to buy new fighter jets from corporations that will use part of that contract money to fund your next election.. Uncle Ed won't even send a damned thank you note :)

[ProudDad]

105. Already do it with Medicare...

what's the problem... :shrug:

It's already in the law -- HR676...

[SoCalDem]

106. Universal/single-payer would make MORE money necessary

and once given, would be next to impossible for them to take it away.. They want to cash the paycheck and go on spending binges, instead of manintaining the household and THEN spending what's left. they want US to only have access to the cookie dust...not the cookie

[slipslidingaway]

103. 2 more R's needed if it's not too late n/t

[Desertrose]

111. Think its too late for an R, but here's a K

Single payer is the only answer for sooooo many people.

[slipslidingaway]

113. Thanks :) n/t

[WeCanWorkItOut]

114. Medical inflation is a very serious problem now, could get worse

In a badly designed plan (one of those "closed chamber" plans), we could end up with more inflation. One result, many lost votes in the election after next. More importantly, a lot of suffering. Particularly for working people without the strong lobbies.

Moreover, there are other big sources of inflation on the horizon.