So when did it become okay for progressives to demonize people without health insurance?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

"Free riders"

"Gaming the system"

"Deadbeats"

"Young people who think they are invincible"

"People who can afford insurance but refuse to buy it"

etc. etc.

Funny, my understanding was that most people who don't have health insurance don't have it because they work in crappy $9 an hour jobs with no benefits. Or they are self-employed and even the most bare-bones catastrophic coverage plan has exhorbitant premiums. Or they were dropped or refused coverage due to a preexisting condition. Now both Hillary and Barack (but mostly Hillary because she has to justify a mandate) inform me that there are literally legions of healthy young people with buckets of disposable income, who are maliciously, and with wanton glee, refusing to get insurance. Apparently, if these masses of scofflaws are cajoled or coerced into insurance plans, everyone else's premiums will magically be reduced to pennies.

There's an eerie sort of familiarity to what's going on with this characterization. I believe these mythical non-insured people have become the "Welfare Queens" of healthcare.

I was listening to Laura Flanders earlier today and a woman called in and proceeded to rattle off the Clinton/Krugman talking points about the need for mandates. Sure enough, those "young people who think they are invincible" made their appearance in her comments. I never thought I would see the day when Democrats would adopt these kind of memes and this attitude of blaming the little person.

And another thing, when precisely did the insurance industry become the solution to our healthcare situation rather than the problem?

[TomClash]

1. Healthcare should be free

. . . because it is a universal human right.

[shadowrider]

11. Nothing is free

Somebody has to pay for it. How much did Hillary say her healthcare plan was going to cost? For that matter, how much did Obama say his healthcare plan was going to cost? (Hint: take what they said and multiply by 10, you may get close to the actual number).

[Iris]

19. Right. And anyone who goes to a public college or univerisity pays A LOT less because those schools

are subsidized by taxpayers. There are many, many, many public universities that have medical schools, so indeed, I HAVE paid something towards the medical system and if I'm sick and don't have health insurance, I damn well OUGHT to be treated with the same intensity as someone who does have health insurance.

Thank you very much.

[Independent-Voter]

53. God damn that is some twisted logic right there!

[TomClash]

27. Oh here we go

Yes, I know "nothing is free" and "the taxpayer bears the cost." Ok, more precisely, at the P.O.P. it should be free.

Single payer seems to work fairly well everywhere else in the first world.

[BigDaddy44]

49. Unlimited demand

If you make healthcare totally free at the P.O.P., you create a much higher demand, without providing a much higher supply. And, since you're not allowing for prices to go up (which normally regulate supply/demand irregularities), the only option is to regulate (or ration) the supply. I'm in favor of Universal Health Care, but you can't divorce yourself from the reality of the impact it has on the market.

[TomClash]

51. So what? Too much health care is bad?

I understand supply and demand and that's precisely why I favor Universal Health Care free at P.O.P. I want people to stay healthy.

That's more important than buying much of the bourgeoisie capitalist crap that passes for product.

[ContinentalOp]

60. Of course you must regulate the supply.

The supply is already regulated in our current private system. The key is we don't need an accountant telling people what health care they do or do not deserve. It should be up to a medical professional. It's called triage and it's already done successfully in every emergency room in the country.

[daleo]

69. It's free in Canada at the point of purchase

There is no unlimited demand, or even particularly high demand relative to the U.S.

But being single payer makes the administration much, much cheaper and allows universal coverage.

[PaulaFarrell]

74. Is that actually true?

I am speaking as a resident of England for 17 years where healthcare is free except for prescriptions which have a fixed cost. I don't see people rushing to the doctor just because it's free, but they are more likely to seek treatment early rather than later. It is a false economy to put off going to the doctor until you are so ill that you need hospitalisation. At the same time, I worked at a private hospital in the US and I was told, fairly reliably, that doctors were paid a 7% commission on all x-rays that they ordered. I know for a fact that my aged mother has been told by her doctor that people her age should have a colonoscopy every five years just to be 'safe' - I know that would never happen here, as doctors have best practice standards under which they order these types of tests and they would never order them for speculative reasons. Here, GPs serve as gatekeepers to expensive procedures rather than purveyors of them. The real problem here is that your condition may not be investigated adequately if you do not show textbook symptoms. This probably makes economic and social sense but it can be frustrating.

[Sgent]

78. If you have actual knowledge

of doctor's recieving those kickbacks -- turn them into the FBI since its a felony (and a major one). The only physicians getting paid for x-rays or other imaging in a hospital are the ones actually interpreting the image (radiologists mostly).

It is true that imaging ordered in the doctor's office (not the hospital), assuming the machine is owned by the physician, does allow them to charge a technical fee -- which would allow them greater reimbursement.

US Preventative Task Force guidelines show that mortality is reduced with colonoscopies every 5 years. If they don't do that in the NHS its due to rationing -- and it is resulting in higher mortality for NHS patients. This particular issue is actually very well studied.

[meow mix]

39. we pay our taxes. europe cant believe we pay our taxes and get no health care.

they wonder wtf is wrong with us..

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

73. Lots of stuff is free.

[shadowrider]

77. ok, I'll bite

What's free?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

85. The piece of thought right before it exacts a price on your brain.

:)

[shadowrider]

86. LOL you're funny

Get back to me when you can develop a coherent thought. Again I ask, what's free??

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

88. Entropy.

[muffin1]

80. If we can afford a fricking war

that cost us up wards of a few trillion dollars, then we can afford health care for every citizen in this country. Nearly every country in the civilized world has it, but not us? The richest country in the world...dispicable! I work every single day, but I have to choose between paying for health care and eating. I am at high risk for cervical cancer. I have had three LEEP operations (at $900.00 each), and they haven't solved the problem. My next step is a hysterectomy (at $14,000) or death.

[muffin1]

82. Isn't there

A repuke underground you could visit?

[Orsino]

64. I would like it attached to personhood...

...rather than to citizenship or to employment.

[ContinentalOp]

2. Brilliant point! Those dastardly healthcare queens are ruining it for everyone!

The government should require them to buy insurance from private, for-profit corporations!

[JimGinPA]

14. Well I Think You...

Nailed it!


:rofl:

[Redstone]

15. While driving Cadillacs! (Hey, isn't that what Saint Reagan said?)

Redstone

[Avalux]

3. Hillary is militant about forcing everyone to have health insurance. What about this?

I make over 500K a year. I choose to not buy health insurance because I'd rather pay out of pocket when I get ill. Will she force me, garnish my wages - to make sure I am insured? Whatever happened to FREEDOM OF CHOICE?

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. For the same reason that you're required to support public schools even if you have no kids. n/t

[anigbrowl]

12. Significant difference

Most schools are not run on a profit basis (though teachers don't work for free), but the economic benefit is widely distributed. The same is true of socialized healthcare (not driven by private insurance). In both cases, normal free market considerations do not apply to the same extent because the consumers (students and patients) are neither fully informed nor free economic agents. It's hard to be a really informed healthcare consumer without having a medical degree of some kind - to the point that even if you are intelligent and do tons of research, you can't walk into a pharmacy and prescribe the medicine you need.

[sandnsea]

13. And the same reason we oppose vouchers

Because tax payers should not be required to pay for PRIVATE SCHOOL, any more than they should be required to pay for PRIVATE insurance. Further, Hillary's plan does not guarantee health care at all. It's entirely possible people will have their wages garnished to pay for insurance with deductibles and co-pays that are so out of reach that the person still can't see a doctor. That's why her plan is wrong.

[Avalux]

18. No. Insurance Cos. are private, for profit cos. I shouldn't be forced to pay them.

I am a medical professional and feel I can do a better job on my own than forking over several hundreds $$ a month to help a corporation's bottom line.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

26. I'm not in your enviable position yet but I'd still rather take my chances

I've seen enough people with insurance end up going bankrupt because of an illness or injury. What the hell good was the insurance??!?

I'm with you. I'll be damned if I'm going to hand over several hundred a month to some greedy corporation, that may or may not pay for treatment after I cough up a hefty deductible. I might as well take that money and burn it. I honestly think I'd be better off buying lottery tickets with the same amount after the horror stories I've heard.

[CTyankee]

36. Well, there are good jobs with good insurance you could look for.

My husband works for the city and is a member of AFSCME. We have excellenthealth care coverage. It is private insurance to be sure so I guess you would say we are "feeding the beast." However, I think that a better day is coming and we will get to single payer health insurance. It will just take time, but we will prevail if we have a Dem in the White House. This may take time, to weed out private insurance and get the people onthe side of governmetn insurance, but it is coming! Don't give up just because it will start out with private AND public plans. The public plans will prevail!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

44. I don't have as much faith as you do, having come from the insurance industry

Both Clinton and Obama claim they will have government plans that will compete with private insurers. Sounds great, but it requires you to believe that the powerful and well funded industry, who is in on both plans from the ground up, is going to obligingly participate in its own demise. IOW, it ain't gonna happen. This is why Clinton's plan really worries me. The mandates will bind us to the private insurance industry in perpetuity. Just imagine having these mandates, and then the Republicans come back into power in 20 years or so. Any subsidies the Democrats got for us will be cut, while the obligation to pay these bloated greedy companies will remain.

[CTyankee]

45. Those are wise fears, I agree.

I think the only thing we can hope for is public opinion and a consciousness in the press about how terrible the situation actually is, for there to be change.

BTW, have you read Matthew Miller's book "The 2% Solution"? He devotes a section of his book to health care. He got a liberal Dem and a conservative repub., congressmen, together to talk about solutions. They actually agreed that the system needed to be revamped and on universal hc and on community ratings to bring down costs. If you haven't already, give it a read and let us know what you think. Warning: you won't like his conclusion as it is a compromise situation, but it's interesting to read what he has to say...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. I have no problem with paying for public schools

I also have no problem with being taxed to help pay for a single payer system that would cover everyone. I don't appreciate being blamed for high health care costs because I refuse to give money to a private company that will turn around and deliver me a shoddy product. Big difference.

[CTyankee]

32. With that kind of money you could buy excellent health care insurance.

Why on earth would you not? That's just not sane. You need to "insure" your wealth against catastrophe, don't you know that? If you are not socking away every dollar you can in your 401k and insuring yourself against catastrophe anything you are foolish, IMHO. It just doesn't make sense.

Penny wise, pound foolish...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

35. The poster is a medical professional and may know more than you about it.

Have you seen Sicko? Seen all the people who dutifully paid their premiums, only to be denied coverage when they needed it. Did you see the woman testifying before Congress about how she got bonuses for denying people's claims?

[CTyankee]

38. Is your "wealth" all in income? How much is it in assets?

I am really interested in your position, given your situation. As a former major gifts officer for a statewide charity, I know the difference. The wealthy insure themselves very well. They take this very seriously. I am sure the poorer don't fare well in the insurance market, but according to what you are saying, I am assuming you are not one of them...yes, no?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

42. Neither. I'm self-employed, in a new business, with my income fluctuating wildly.

Right now I'm using my assets to build my business.

I'm thinking you may have meant your post to the one I responded to, the doctor.

As for what you are saying about the wealthy, that is true, but there's a wide variance in what they deem to be necessary insurance. I used to sell life and long term care insurance and did place quite a few multi-millionaires in policies. Others, however, wanted nothing to do with it, preferring instead to self-insure. For some of those people, HSAs were a preferable option to insurance policies. There are some people who simply refuse to pay premiums if there's a chance they (or their heirs) won't get their money back. Practically every wealthy person I know has life insurance, of course.

[CTyankee]

43. Yes, I raised money from hugely wealthy people in Greenwich, Ct.

They were all Wall Street, the richest being hedge fund people, some investment bankers. LOTS of money. I am sure their health insurance came from the companies they were working for, but I am also sure they were "rich" insurances. They were not middle class or poor, so they had their choices, which most of us don't. When it comes down to it, they got the insurance. That is probably because health care is so stupendously expensive in our country. But when I look at them, I think that they are smart people when it comes to money. So they get insurance, go figure...

[rinsd]

55. So if there was a health care tax, would you refuse to pay it?

Why not sign up with a public health plan if you don't wish to enrich private companies.

Both plans call for massive expansion of the public health system both in terms of scope & eligibility.

So basically you have no problem with a mandate on parents who may not be able to afford it (Obama's plan) but you in a position to more than afford it reject the imposition on your "freedom"?

:puke:

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Yeah. I am surprised to hear liberals saying these things

[Iris]

20. Where are they saying this?

This is disgusting.

[CTyankee]

6. For the most part, people don't have health care because they can't afford it.

There are exceptions, but I think you are right, the vast majority haven't got enough money to buy decent health insurance or what they do buy doesn't do much for them.

But it was ever thus that there will be those who can but don't buy insurance. They are not just the young, alas, which is why Medicare penalizes seniors who don't sign up for Part B and go uncovered until one day when they have to.

I've worked places where you are required to get in on the health insurance plan or PROVE that you have alternate coverage. You can't work there otherwise. Some of these places are nonprofits we progressives like. It is sad that they have to mandate this but they do.

I confess I was one of those "invincible"young people myself, but in those days the costs were not nearly as high. But I remember how I thought health insurance was a crazy idea...you get older, you get wiser hopefully...

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. self delete

dupe

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. Why are you not complaining about being coerced to participate in the healthcare system of veterans?

Retirees?
The disabled?

A major portion of your social security tax are medical and disability insurance premiums.

Freedom of choice is a good thing when there isn't an overriding social purpose which is harmed by it. Stoplights are compulsory for a good reason.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

24. Actually, as a veteran myself, I'm more than a little chagrined

To see that the taxes I gladly pay to care for veterans are not providing adequate care to them.

But again, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Mandatory private insurance =/= universal health care

Mandatory private insurance =/= entitlement programs like SS or Medicare

[sandnsea]

9. Barack has most certainly not said that

His specific point is that he believes the reason people don't have health insurance is because they can't afford it, which is why we don't need mandates. Any remarks otherwise are only in response to the Clinton campaigns accusations that people will game the system.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

25. You're right. He's not nearly as bad as Hillary with this rhetoric.

But he does say things like "people who game the system", referring to the uninsured who show up at emergency rooms. Again, creating an image of free-wheeling Good Time Charlies and Charlottes.

[madmom]

79. If you watched the last debate Obama did admit that his program had

a mandate too, so he can't take the high road on that.

[TexasObserver]

10. AMEN! We have this thing called POVERTY, and it has gone up.

Asking the poor to pay for the medical misses the point entirely. Once one agrees with the Republican premise, one is thinking like a Republican.

No. We need universal health care, not universal health insurance. Buy it to upgrade, to get more, but the minimum required should be a right, not a privilege.

[Fox Mulder]

16. It's never been okay.

I would never demonize anyone who didn't have health insurance and a true liberal wouldn't either. I supported Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards in the presidential race because they supported universal health care.

[Bread and Circus]

17. What's really interesting about these "deadbeats" is that they already pay taxes for medicare and SS

goddam deadbeats! :wtf:

[CTyankee]

46. SS and medicare taxes are mandatory. You can't opt out of payroll taxes.

I really don't know what would happen if these taxes weren't mandatory. Do you think most people would "opt in" if they were far from retirement and just starting out? Not baiting you, just asking the question.

My guess is that there would be some people who would opt out in order to get more in their paycheck each payday so they could buy what they actually want and need, rather than looking down the road some 40 years. How many would, I don't know.

[Bread and Circus]

54. The point is that the Clinton campaign is "demonizing" people for not

buying health insurance but the sad thing is that these same people are already paying taxes for services they don't even derive direct benefit from. It's a simple case of blaming the victim, which is usually a tactic of the Republican partisans.

[CTyankee]

72. Well, demonizing isn't good if people are making an honest effort.

If I didn't pay my taxes the IRS wouldn't demonize me, but they might throw me in jail!

[Vinca]

21. Thanks for your post. I liked Laura's response to the woman

citing Krugman - essentially, we need single payer, universal health care and not some stupid insurance scheme. It also seems the people flogging the uninsured say zero about the obscene profits being raked in by the insurance companies. Actually, they say nothing until they go to use their insurance and the company says, "Sorry. We understand you had a nose bleed in the first grade which you failed to disclose on your application for insurance. We regret to inform you your chemotherapy claim has been denied."

[TexasObserver]

22. k&r for the truth of it

[Mike03]

28. This is something I have posted about before. I'm so happy to see someone else post

on this topic.

These ARE relevant questions.

I can afford health insurance but would rather pay cash. There are probably other people like me out there.

People need to double-think their assumptions on this issue, and we who deviate from the norm need to express our opinions about why we don't wish to harmonize within these assumed and pre-assumed categories.

Nothing is so damned simple as it seems, is it?

[CTyankee]

48. Do you worry about a catastrophic accident or illness?

It would scare the hell out of me...

[Mike03]

76. Yes, I do

My entire family is nothing but a family tree of cancer and heart disease.

I'm not a very optimistic person. It's hard to explain... I'm just not very hopeful about the future, and having now watched loved ones go through cancer treatment, I know I don't want that.

Does this makes sense?

[Mike03]

29. This post is excellent: Would you consider reposting it in GD? NT

[UALRBSofL]

30. I have to jump into this since I'm a nurse and this issue is important to me

There are millions of people whom don't have insurance, something like 1 in 5. The main reason, they can't afford it. I really don't want to hear about the deadbeats, blah, blah, blah. Bottom line, MOST can't afford it. Now, what we need is a UHC plan with one payer source. That isn't going to happen any time soon and probably not in my life time. In the mean time, we have got to insure EVERYONE one way or the other. Our healthcare system is broken and it's only getting worse losing money everyday. I don't like the idea of OPTing out of healthcare like Obama proposes. However his plan does mandate just over 100 million americans have insurance, these being children. Now, I don't want to mandate just part of americans I want to mandate all americans. The way it's mandated would be a deduction from your paycheck. Now, if we had this, we could throw out medicare which includes a prescription plan(and medicare is totally screwed up full of donut holes which you still wind up paying plenty out of pocket for Part B and D), which is a whole nother post. Now, with a payroll deduction your insurance is income based. It's prorated to what your income is. Then, it's capped so that people who make $500,000 don't wind up paying way to much for there plan. Then, it also address' low income or no income people. These people would have full healthcare free. The other thing it allows you to do is be able to pick a primary care doctor where you get routine physicals where PREVENTIVE care starts, and is the foundation of good health. Early cancer detection. Early hypertension detection and treatment are just a few of the things could be treated and/or prevented with a primary care provider. You wouldn't have the copays, or with medicare have to spend $275 before your prescription plan kicks in or where medicare pays 75% of doctors visits, and that's just a few things medicare and HMO's cherry pick. Then, you wont be turned down due to pre-existing illness'. Maybe people want to have the choice of not having healthcare, thinking a mandate sounds too fascist, but, in reality everyone needs healthcare. Statistics show on average 30% of the population age 30 or below will wind up in the ER at least one time in that age frame,(per medicare statistics). So, uninsured people that needs care and have opted out, can't afford the penalty, the costs are passed on to the consumer.

[ContinentalOp]

31. You say you want a single payer system but you're advocating ditching medicare completely?

Medicare is the closest thing we have to single payer. We should be expanding it, not eliminating it. If we dropped medicare then everyone in the country would be customers of private, for-profit insurance companies which is obviously what the industry wants. This is the position that people like the Heritage Foundation advocate.

[UALRBSofL]

40. ContinentalOp No offense

But there are a lot of things about medicare, you pay for over your lifetime with tax's out of your paycheck(Medicare portion) hidden costs, copays, you pay for plan B and plan C and you have to have B and C or your only getting hospital admission/care. do-nut holes in the prescription plan many aren't aware of, the first $275 out of your pocket annually for prescriptions. So, if you did a comparison of costs of medicare to her plan it would cover everyone, would be cheaper because 275 million would be enrolled. Now, I'm not saying get rid of SSI/SSDI which works with Medicare. That would stay the way it is except I would want them to increase the amount you get at retirement of if you become disabled.

[ContinentalOp]

65. I won't pretend to know all of the details of Medicare.

But if it has problems then they should be fixed. Privatization is not the solution! At least not if you call yourself a liberal.

[UALRBSofL]

71. ContinentalOp The other thing about medicare I forgot to mention

This is another serious flaw with medicare. When a person becomes disabled and is unable to work, loses there insurance, medicare kicks in 2 years and 5 months after the initial illness occurred and the person became disabled. In the mean time, the person isn't covered and they have this disabling medical problem and they still need care, treatments, medications, doctors visits, etc. And I was looking at the number of cases that are waiting to be decided and they are so far backlogged, I think it was almost a million people waiting. I did a google of medicare and one of the links listed the statistics.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

33. IOW, you think we should have a single payer system that covers everyone.

I agree. I also agree that it should be indexed to your pay, like your SS and Medicare contributions are.

As far as mandates being "marxist", I think it depends on what we are talking about. Sure, RWers will view universal single payer as marxist or communist or socialist or whatever, but it's not. Even if it were, so what? We have lots of government-provided services like schools, police, fire, etc. and very few people consider them to be socialism.

Mandatory private health insurance however, is NOT marxist. Quite the opposite actually. It's fascist.

[UALRBSofL]

41. thecatburgler thanks for correcting me on that

It's fascist and from now on if I'm discussing healthcare I'll reference fascism instead of marxism. :)

[Mike03]

34. Would you please give me permission to cross post this

post of yours to GD, and credit you for writing it?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. Sure thing!

Thanks. :hi:

[fishwax]

47. "when precisely did the insurance industry become the solution to our healthcare situation ...

... rather than the problem"

Good question!

[formernaderite]

50. hold on here...

"Or they are self-employed and even the most bare-bones catastrophic coverage plan has exorbitant premiums. Or they were dropped or refused coverage due to a preexisting condition."
What is an exorbitant amount? I am self-employed, I live in a state with high insurance premiums...I have a personal comp policy with blue cross for a family of four, and pay about $700 bucks per quarter. I have a large deductible but could save even more money if I upped the deductible. My older son has his own policy with blue cross, and has a pre-existing condition that they will not cover. That didn't mean they wouldn't cover everything else mind you. And the only reason they NOW won't cover his pre-existing..is because he allowed his coverage to lapse. He could have upped the policy deductible, and been paying about $75 bucks a month with everything covered...but NOOOO, he forgot. So now an ACL injury that has been repaired...will not be covered for a few years.

See, I don't quite buy this idea that you can't get some type of insurance. There are of course some people who truly can't...but most just don't want to give something else up. I agree the system needs fixed...but I also don't want one of those comprehensive systems where people walk in and plop down a small co-pay. That my friends is one of the reasons health care has sky rocketed.

[joeybee12]

52. "Young people who think thye are invincible" is NOT demonizing someone

although the other comments probably are. The sad fact is that...left to an individual's decision...more oyung people would opt out...when you're young you feel indestructible, you're not going to die, or even get hurt. It's human nature, and human nature often lets us down.

[rinsd]

56. How is asking those who can afford to to pay their fair share non progressive?

Why do people keep ignoring the massive expansion of the option of public healthcare in both plans?

[ContinentalOp]

58. Because the idea that they can afford to pay and just choose not to is a myth!

Just like the "welfare queen" myth. Sure there are a lot of young people who lack health insurance in between the time they are covered by their parents and the time they get a job that supplies them with coverage. But young people are not the ones that are putting a strain on the system.

It's the working poor whose employers don't provide healthcare, and people who are sick and injured, lost their jobs and their insurance, and can't get coverage -- those are the people who put a strain on our health care system. They don't lack health care because they don't want it. They simply cannot afford it. Or no companies will insure them.

If Clinton's plan truly makes health care affordable and accessible for these people then there is no need to require them to buy it. They will obviously snap it up voluntarily.

[rinsd]

63. That must be why there are Obama supporters in this thread living the "myth"

Yelling about their personal freedom not their inability to pay.

"It's the working poor whose employers don't provide healthcare, and people who are sick and injured, lost their jobs and their insurance, and can't get coverage -- those are the people who put a strain on our health care system. They don't lack health care because they don't want it. They simply cannot afford it. Or no companies will insure them."

Exactly and both plans include a massive expansion of the public health care plans in terms of funding & eligibility, from the plans for Congressional members onto Medicare & Medicaid. They rely on preventative medicine & regular checkups partially as means of reducing costs both in reduction of e-room visits and early detection and treatment of disease.

The mandate model is not perfect but in terms of swelling the rolls of public health care and putting in in competition with private insurance it could be quite useful.

I personally prefer single payer but I see both plans as potential bridges to that system.

[ContinentalOp]

66. Trying to frame this as a "personal freedom" issue is of course a RW talking point.

But personally I believe that it's a right wing talking point that a majority of Americans are going to pick up on and blindly parrot. Which is the single reason why I think that Obama's plan is the slightly better plan of the two. Neither are great and neither are the single payer system that we need to be working toward. I think that Clinton's plan is a political non-starter though, simply because of the mandates.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

57. kickers. right on.

[leftofthedial]

59. "when precisely did the insurance industry become the solution"??

the instant they wrote the check to Clinton

[snappyturtle]

61. Thank you, thank you, thank you! The insurance industry is not

the solution...I agree. I wish we'd just bite the bullet for single payer healthcare. Which makes me think--what was Edward's policy on healthcare?

[JVS]

62. "Young people who think they are invincible"

That really pissed me off.

[davidthegnome]

67. You mean I'm not invincible?

Just kidding.

No, honestly, I know of very few people my age (23) who can afford to pay for health insurance. The lucky ones are insured through their jobs or still on their parents insurance. Yet - I know people lucky enough to have jobs up here (the unemployment rate in my neck of the woods - Aroostook County Maine, is much higher than most think) that simply can't get the full time hours they need to qualify for the insurance programs.

Personally, well, I don't have much work history - from 16 to 20 I spent my time as a stay at home dad, trying to take care of two kids. I couldn't find steady work, and my fiance could.

Until the last few months I was one of those statistics, an uninsured young American. I can't find full time employment and can't afford to go to school - though I might do it in the near future anyway and depend on student loans. I worked odd jobs until I had an accident (involving a skill-saw) and had to take some time away. Now I'm on medications like zoloft and xanax, was diagnosed with panic disorder some time ago.

I was lucky in that my parents were (just barely) able to pay for my medications and treatment, and the process of getting on Maine-care took some time. I wonder how people who weren't so lucky would have fared?

I have almost no hope that I'll ever be financially independent or able to survive on my own. It is simply too hard to manage these days - and I have neither the education, nor the work history. I'm often sick and suffer from frequent depression and panic attacks.

But don't get me wrong - I'm not feeling sorry for myself. I'm feeling damn sorry for the millions of Americans that are even worse off than I am, for the millions of orphans around the world who's governments can't afford even to feed them. For the children living in the sewers of Russia and Romania. For those far worse off, who have no voice, and no one to love them and take care of them.

Universal health insurance... it does not apply to those orphans, to the adult orphans who live in the sewers, or become prostitutes or thieves due to necessity to survive.

All of this talk about universal health care is a joke. I honestly feel that no candidate, no political leader that we have today is capable, or even willing to do what would truly need to be done - and that's in America, where we could afford to pay for it with a mere fraction of what we're spending in Iraq.

Yet... I am fortunate, I am one of the lucky ones who managed to get federal assistance and now can at least receive medical treatment, therapy and get my medications. Yet I'm still thousands of dollars in debt to local hospitals for the years when I could not get it. But I am, I say again, one of the lucky ones.

[L0oniX]

68. HEALTH CARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT ....damn it all to hell.

Cuba cares more about their people than this fucked up country. Here, if you have no money ...you die and someone makes money from that. This country is full of blood money thirsty capitalist pigs and people who only care about themselves. To all of them I say a big FUCK YOU YA DAMNED ASSCARROTS!

[Jed Dilligan]

70. The same way it's okay to demonize the homeless

Whether it's healthcare or housing, the people who buy into an unfair, broken system always resent those who don't.

[BootinUp]

75. Your argument is just calling Hillary a liar. I think you are good at that

but it doesn't make it so.

She has said that it will be afordable and available to everyone under her plan. She has said that 20% of the uninsured can afford even todays rates but have chosen not to purchase healthcare.

If you can read that paragraph above and still think your thread is worth posting than I reccommend you just come out and say that YOU believe Hillary is lying about her healthcare plan. Then maybe we can have a real debate on the issue.

[nonconformist]

81. I think this is a disingenuous argument.

Speaking as someone with no health insurance that supports mandates, I think you're off the mark.

Saying that if insurance is affordable, people will get it sounds real nice, but it has no basis in reality. The reality is that millions of people currently qualify for Medicaid or other assistance, but they don't partake for whatever reason. That's just the truth.

Now, under Obama's plan, millions wouldn't be covered. Why? What would their motivation be? Procrastination, irresponsibility, naivety, ignorance (in the uninformed sense), and stubbornness. I'm sorry, but that's just the truth. Even I as an uninsured, working class person can admit that and I'm not offended by that. If people could opt out of Social Security, they would do that too, to their own detriment. Sorry to say, that's the way the world works.

[eridani]

83. In my town, we don't demonize people without fire protection

That's because there aren't any! You pays yer property taxes (directly or indirectly), and if your house catches fire, they send a truck out. They don't even interview you first to make sure that you never store oily rags in the basement or let your kids play with matches, or commit any other fire safety lifestyle sins.

We do it that way because fires don't happen very often, but they could happen to anybody. Therefore we as a society share the risk and support fire protection for everybody in our district. Since 20% of health care costs in any demographic are incurred by 20% of the population, health care is similar. Spread the risks and pay for the system publicly. (Though of course actual services in the case of health care would continue to be provided mostly by private entities).

Both candidates make the obvious solution sound incredibly complicated. It ain't--it's just difficult politically because so many parasites live so well off of the current system.

[area51]

84. kick. (n/t)

[Sparkly]

87. It's my understanding that people with insurance do pay for those who are treated without it.

The problem, at THIS point, isn't about people who are happy to have all their care in emergency rooms! (Who is?)

The problem with non-mandates is that it's not really universal, and doesn't get us on the path toward putting insurance companies out of business. If you can avoid being in the system while you're healthy, and join in once you're in the hospital with a catastrophic illness for example, it becomes unaffordable for everybody, because basically only sick people will be in the system.

That's something I haven't seen adequately answered by Obama's camp, anywhere.