To those who claim single payer or nothing.. please reconsider your position

[Peacetrain]

I am not calling any particular person, group, anything out.

I have read from more than one participant in DU, that if we do not get single payer, then they want no changes, no bill, things to stay as they are.


I have read, that the PO being proposed by the President in nothing but a welfare bill for people who cannot afford insurance, and if it is not PO for all, then they want no changes, no bill, things to stay as they are.

First of all, if things stay as they are, with no locks on insurance increases, or keeping insurance companies from dropping people when they do get ill, or refusing to cover people.. we are going to be a totally bankrupt country in a matter of a few years.


Over 1/6th of the economy is medically based in form or another

60% of bankruptices are due to medical needs..75% of those have insurance

As far as PO covering people who have no insurance.. please GOD tell me where we should start with this?

I have posted my brothers story in here more than once.. he cannot get insurance.. and he is one serious illness away from a disaster

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8590485

We have been slugging away at this for almost 100 years..

[Oregone]

1. No

[pnwmom]

7. So you think that people like this woman's brother should be sacrificed

to your principles?

[Oregone]

23. Sure

Because millions of others are "sacrificed" to the capitalistic ideology the Democrats and Republicans embrace that demands there must be profits in every aspect of health care. You think, in the killing fields of health insurance, the death of but one will guilt people on jumping on the private health insurance bandwagon? Everyone is running around with Stockholm Syndrome, begging others to save the fucker who is sucking them dry.

Hey, look, Im not even a Single-Payer or nothing type person. This OP doesn't apply to me. BUT. This OP is a fucking STRAWMAN. And thats why Im being a bit snarky here. Everyone that opposes this health care "reform" and prefers Single-Payer IS NOT a "single-payer or nothing" advocate.

There are a lot of different systems I would accept. There are some incremental changes I would get behind in the US even. I would hope Single-payer would be a final destination for some though, and would prefer things that actual take you in that direction. But I sure as fuck am not for mandating private insurance purchasing (and subsidizing it with tax-payer money).

[pnwmom]

27. What does the OP have to do with mandating private insurance? Nothing.

Talk about a straw man.

[Oregone]

29. Thats, eh, sorta the posion pill you gotta swallow with this reform

But yeah, I guess the OP only talked about the flowery aspects, rather than the big deal-breaker.

Ive seen no one on ANY board, on ANY paper who is against regulations on insurers (that would help this case) because its not single-payer. I don't think you will ANY person who would oppose a simple bill banning pre-existing condition checks, lifetime maximums, recission, etc, for the reason that it isn't single-payer.

Now, pair that sorta bill up with mandated private insurance, and the house comes tumbling down.

Maybe there really isn't a group of "single-payer or nothing" people. Maybe just some people think if you are going to fuck with the whole system in a major way, don't make something worse--make something we know is better with empirical evidence.

[pnwmom]

32. If you haven't seen these people, then you haven't read very widely.

All the OP is asking is that people who are in favor of single-payer also support a real public option -- which would give those who want single-payer the chance to have a public plan for themselves. S/he's not asking anyone to support private insurance.

[Oregone]

36. And I imagine a ton of "SPorNothing" people would support a REAL public option, without mandates

(Because its better than the status quo. Its the status quo with a public insurer for EVERYONE and regulation, but without mandates)

By ignoring that the public option exists in the minds of some Congressmen as a pool for the poor, and everyone else will be mandated to have private insurance, you are obfuscating the entire issue and trying to coral single-payer advocates into some close minded cave. Its purely strawman bullshit.

There are a ton of people who are against this reform for a VARIETY of reasons aside from the fact that it isn't a single-payer reform. That remains their battle-cry, as it solves those problems. Maybe its a compromisable position (Democrats could learn a lot from that).

[Laelth]

64. +1 It's definitely a straw-man argument.

I know of no person who is a "single-payer or nothing" advocate. Well said.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Orsino]

76. Not a straw man.

These people are few, but they're there. Here. And "please reconsider" is a worthy request.

Health care is a moving target as Congress works out its myriad of compromises, and we should always be asking ourselves exactly what we should support or oppose.

[xultar]

2. Here they come. ROFL. Watch'em. The same as the others but different side.

:rofl: :popcorn:

[Oregone]

3. Exact same. Yep. Single-Payer advocates are fascist murdering fucks that are pedophiles

[xultar]

33. You have the drama thing in the bag. Can I get an academy award over here?

[Laelth]

65. Well, that's one way to avoid any real discussion on the merits. Derisive dismissal. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[xultar]

70. Do you do anything fun? Say anything fun? Do you laugh at all?

[Laelth]

71. You are very intuitive.

Perhaps you could turn that gift into something constructive?

:shrug:

I admit that I have not been very happy of late, as if you really cared.

:dem:

-Laelth

[xultar]

72. Actually I do. I always PM fellow DUers who are having issues and ask if they want to talk.

So, if you want to talk, PM me and we can exchange email addresses or phone numbers.
I've talked to lots of DUers.

[tridim]

59. "they" is the only person I have on ignore

Seems like I made a wise choice last week.

[Cleita]

4. So what if you don't even get the public option?

I heard on the radio today that a public option may not make it through the senate. So that means what is left is that you will be forced to buy insurance from a private company. I don't think that will help your situation. By demanding single payer, they may agree to the public option as a compromise. Your brother deserves to be able to get Medicare with no strings attached. The only other option is that the private insurers be forced to be non-profit and cover everyone regardless of medical condition. That doesn't mean they still won't deny claims. I don't find letting the foxes in to run the hen house a good solution.

[Peacetrain]

6. This is just phase one..

[Cleita]

No it's not. It's the final bill to come out of the senate and it may not

have a public option unless someone scares Baucus and company into changing their minds before the final bill is completed.

[Peacetrain]

17. The gang of six.. and the senate.. still have to come together with the House.

[Cleita]

28. Dean was counting on a couple of Republicans to be on board, namely

Snowe and Collins, who have just announced that they aren't on board for a public option. Takes the 51 down two notches.

[emulatorloo]

19. Baucus is a Republican Double Agent as far as I can tell. Worth noting that Social Security evolved

over time. The program was changed from the original bill to be better and more inclusive.

(I believe they are going to ignore most if not all of the Baucus bill -- there are other bills in the Senate, I think the leadership "gets it" when it comes to Baucus).

[Oregone]

11. With a straight face, how could you assert mandating private insurance is phase 1?

Thats one step forward with the regulations and two steps back. You really think the money that control legislation to be that shitty will, with such power, allow you to change it out of their favor?

[Peacetrain]

14. To be honest.. I do not give a tinkers damn about you.. But my brother.. you bet

[Oregone]

26. All these regulations could be passed quietly in the cold of night to help your brother

(with little justifiable resistance).

But when they come out for mandates for *mostly* private insurance, you get many on the left pissed off

And when you come up with anything too commy for the right, like the public option, you get the wing-nuts pissed off.

Don't be pissed at people to your left about your brother. Its the Democrats that are fucking it all up.

[Laelth]

66. Clinton told us NAFTA would be revised later.

It never has been revised.

We can not bank on this just being "phase one."

:dem:

-Laelth

[emulatorloo]

13. Senator Harkin has stated twice that the bill will pass with a strong public option

There have been threads on this with links. Additionally there is a thread today where Howard Dean says there are 51 solid votes in the Senate.

[Cleita]

25. Yes there has been, but there is also talk as early as this morning that

there won't be 50 votes in the Senate (51st being Biden) if there is a public option. So Dean was counting on someone who is changing their vote as of this morning. Also, just any old public option isn't acceptable. The public option has to be a government run insurance like Medicare or Medicaid to be effective. Just giving taxpayer's money to people so they can afford to buy insurance doesn't cut it. It makes the insurance companies happy though. Their stocks are up with all the anticipation of all that corporate welfare coming their way.

[grantcart]

63. no public option then no bill, no trigger, no coops, no compromise.

[Laelth]

67. +1 n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Kermitt Gribble]

77. +1 n/t

[SIMPLYB1980]

5. Good luck Peacetrain.

They listen to reason about as much as the far right.
:hide:

[Peacetrain]

10. I had quite the discussion in the Twin Cities with people on the ground

and a few movers and shakers.. and they are still pumped and seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. It is there, we are going to get a bill. There will be no single payer.. it is not on the table, and never has been.. but the PO as the President outlined it, has enormous support in places we need support

[Parker CA]

18. I agree, and I believe we will have a strong public option. I remain optimistic. nt.

[Peacetrain]

22. The PO will be there, from everyone I talk to.. because it is the control we need

[Parker CA]

24. Howard Dean just said today or yesterday that we have the 51 votes to pass a PO with reconciliation.

We need a public option and we need reform desperately.

[Control-Z]

60. We'll have a public option.

I'm not so confident about the "strong" part. At least not in the beginning.

[liberalhistorian]

12. You consider insurance mandates "reasonable"

when insurance companies are the main problem in the first place?

[emulatorloo]

8. I want the public option. But yeah I agree - it should be ILLEGAL to DENY COVERAGE

It should be ILLEGAL to water down or drop coverage for people who are sick.

To do nothing would be inhumane.

As I say I want the public option. Harkin is saying a strong public option will be in there. I believe him.

[liberalhistorian]

9. And I say you can take your insurance mandates and

shove them up your ass. That will simply make things much worse than they are now, as bad as it now is. Health INSURANCE is NOT health CARE, there's a huge difference. You will still have the same issues of accessibility, financial ruin for the crime of being sick or injured, paying more and more for higher and higher deductibles and less and less "care", and let's not even get into the fact that most people couldn't afford it in the first place, and the financial formulas that would be used to determine who could afford what are inherently flawed. Not to mention that those with chronic, pre-existing, or serious illnesses would be charged many times more, which they couldn't afford. And yet there'd be FINES for not doing so? How about fining the goddamned insurance companies and their unethical, unconscionable, murderous practices? No, we've gotta protect them and screw the little guy. Fuck that. It's worse than doing nothing at all.

[Peacetrain]

20. If I can get those who are not covered, covered, and those who

are fighting serious illness, not dropped.. well you can stuff it where the sun don't shine.. I am getting people covered

[liberalhistorian]

52. And you think "covered" actually means getting care?

It means nothing of the sort, my friend. It simply means paying through the nose for the privilege of having some overpaid bean counter who gets bonuses for denying care and, thus, maximizing his company's profits at the expense of our lives and our health, decide whether or not we get any needed care and making us fight for what little we get. There's a huge difference between health INSURANCE and health CARE. A HUGE difference.

[Laelth]

68. +2 n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[area51]

21. +1

Great post.

[Parker CA]

15. K&R. I agree it's not going to be perfect by any measure, but a start is progress, IMO. nt.

[geek tragedy]

16. the single payer or nothing people are irrelevant.

No one with any influence pays them any attention.

Not labor, not Congress, not the White House, not the major reform advocacy groups.

[Cleita]

31. Well, they have been made irrelevant because they have not been allowed to

make their case to the law makers. They have been arrested and shut out of meetings and committees. Yet, all lobbyists and insurance companies with their bags of your premium money have been welcomed to all the meetings, the committees and the White House. There has been no democracy in this process and it's crazy because single payer is a middle of the road program not an extreme lefty one. It leaves the delivery of health care in the private sector, nothing socialist or commie about that. Doctors and other health care providers are free to compete with each other like the capitalists like. The big difference is that the single payer, the government, collects the premiums and pays the bills. Since they are able to control costs, it's fiscally a more efficient system. This is something the fiscal conservatives should love, so why are you and all of them fighting it?

It's because our corrupt, corporate whore government wants the money from the private insurers so they have to protect them and their interests. It's really a system that is dishonest and criminal and shouldn't be allowed to exist in this country. Yes, you are right, no one with any influence pays attention to them because they are not allowed to be part of this so-called democracy any more than all liberals were allowed to be part of it during the eight year Bush oil monarchy. The same methods were used to make more than half of the citizens of the USA irrelevant.

[geek tragedy]

34. Yes, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, et al are just a bunch of wimps. nt

[Cleita]

35. The unions only control a third of the workers in this country through

methodical union busting, by our corporate masters, since the Reagan administration when they had significant numbers and could get things done.

[juno jones]

61. I am always reminded of this:

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. They (or we) are not irrelevant.

They make a great boogeyman, to scare people into backing an unworkable plan that will benefit the insurance companies more than it will benefit sick people.

[dionysus]

30. the group you're addressing will be against\complain about anything he does,no matter what the issue

despite the hue and cry that they are on some enlightened mission, they're full of bullshit. They're simply bitter and are going to find something wrong with everything. first they were suddenly economic experts. obama's doing it all wrong. now they are health care experts. obama is secretly in the pocket of big pharma. soon they will be regulatory experts. i bet you half of them don't give a shit about the issue du jour. it's just an avenue for them to yell about how obama is corporatist\facist\a secret republican. and anyone who is even halfway familiar with DU knows they have been filling their pampers since before he was even sworn in.

we already have clowns on here wanting to post a primary challenge in '12. and you wonder why dems lose? we have all these crybabies that will take their ball and go home if they don't get everything exactly their way, right fucking now. reality be damned.

i'll go so far as to say some hope obama fails and the country tanks so they can be proven right.

fortunately, they have such tiny numbers they are irrelevant

[Cleita]

37. Seventy percent who have consistently stated they want single payer over

the years is not a tiny number. Just because many have felt that they have to settle for a public option doesn't mean they don't want single payer first.

[dionysus]

39. i am not against single payer. since the reality is it doesn't have the support to get passed,

i'll take a public option. i'd rather get something we can work with and improve then stubbornly saying no to anything.

[Cleita]

42. This is the problem, you won't get a public option that is worth the paper

it's printed on if you don't demand that it be single payer.

[Cleita]

44. When this insurance reform passes and you guys all find yourself

thrown under the bus, I will be back to say I told you so. Remember Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit, for the pharmaceutical companies that is. Seniors still go without medication or make a choice between eating and taking their pills. This is what this health care reform is shaping up to be, a big ribbon wrapped gift to the insurance companies at the expense of the taxpayers, who still will find themselves without meaningful health care especially if the doctors start refusing to take them like they are refusing to take the Medicare Advantage plans (privatized Medicare). The doctor I work with already won't take insurance although he will take Medicare. But mostly he's cash only. If you can get your insurance company to pay, it's your problem. He will give you a receipt bill.

[dionysus]

49. you sound like you want it to fail just so you can say i told you so.

weak.

[Cleita]

51. Don't put words in my mouth that I want it to fail.

I said it's going to fail because of the direction it's headed in and the fact that the foxes have been put in charge of the hen house, just like they were on the prescription drug reform for Medicare. It's shaping up to be corporate welfare. Medicare Part D is a failure to seniors and a success for big PhRMA. This bill will be a failure to the populace and the medical care givers and a success for the health insurance companies. Why keep doing things the same way over and over again that are failures hoping they will finally succeed? It doesn't make sense.

[dionysus]

53. i say that because you are insistent a good bill will not come out of committee

aparently obama, harken, dean, all those guys are lying eh?

[Cleita]

54. I hope you are right. However, the ones I've seen don't look all that

helpful for real reform to me.

[dionysus]

62. we'll just have to see. if i end up being wrong i'll have some crow to eat.

[dionysus]

48. thats all speculation at this point. neither you nor i know what will be ammended or changed in

conference. i think too many are assuming the worst as if it were settled fact.

[TreasonousBastard]

38. It's not single payer they want, it's...

the abolition of insurance companies. And no, they won't listen.

Insurance companies are responsible for every problem we have-- excessive MRIs and other tests, overprescribing, the cost of dialysis, the price of stents, shortage of primary care practitioners, malpractice, $20 aspirins, and probably cancer itself. Or so it would seem.

If we get something passed that costs $100 a year, covers everyone, pays for everything, but involves an insurance company, they will hate it. (I'll hate it too, but for other reasons-- like where is the rest of the money coming from. But, I digress...)

Lost in all of this is the simple concept of universal, affordable health care and how we get it is not terribly important. Some countries have national plans, other countries have insurance, and they all work better than the anarchy we have here.

Ideologues on all sides are as much of a problem, if not moreso, than the moneyed interests looking to make a bigger buck out of all this. At least you can make a deal with the guy who wants to make a buck.

[Cleita]

40. Other countries demand that insurance follow rules.

They must be non-profit. They must cover basics regardless of health history and there are no denials for what is covered. After basic health coverage, they can do what they like, however, such systems are starting to show their warts. There are still underclasses that are underinsured or uninsured because they can't afford the mandated price. The systems are costlier than the NHC systems. It has nothing to do with ideology but what is the smartest way to get this accomplished.

[Laelth]

41. Drop the individual mandate, and I am on board.

Insist on a massive Federal bail-out of the health insurance industry that's paid for, principally, by the struggling middle class who will be forced to buy useless insurance and enrich an evil private industry, and you lose the support of millions of Americans.

The price Obama is asking us to pay for these reforms is too high. I have never said, "Single-payer or nothing." What I have said is, "no individual mandate ... not under any circumstance."

:dem:

-Laelth

[Oregone]

43. Spot on!

I have never said, "Single-payer or nothing." What I have said is, "no individual mandate ... not under any circumstance."

Who's interest is served when on DU, of all places, people are making straw-man caricatures out of their friends to the left of them? Its easier than talking about the real problems in the bill

[Laelth]

46. It is truly bizarre, to me, how the "centrists" in the Democratic Party operate.

They'll tell you that they "support" single-payer (or any other liberal policy proposal, for that matter), but when the Democratic Party is actually in power, they turn into Republicans and tell us they just don't have the votes to "get it done." All of a sudden they get fiscally conservative and tell us that the liberal proposals they recently claimed to support "cost too much."

What's most frustrating is that they then expect those of us on the left to be happy about this state of affairs. They expect us to shut up and go along with them, and they attack us (mercilessly) if we don't.

Sorry, but it's just not in my nature to be quiet when I see injustice and hypocrisy, nor is it in my nature to be quiet when I see the Democratic Party advancing bad policy.

:dem:

[Cleita]

47. There should be no mandates at all.

They are also a burden on businesses as well as individuals. I'm not against the exchange as long as part of the exchange is Medicare for all to choose from, none of this business that you have to keep what you have and buy Medicare instead. There should be subsidies for the poor and disabled to buy into Medicare, not the private insurance companies, because they are thieves and should not be given taxpayers' money.

[Oregone]

50. You do compromise and allow mandates if...

The centrist compromise and allow Single-Payer. As long as its a no go on one front, its a no go on the other.

The real problem isn't the Single-Payer crowd. Its the "Mandates or nothing" crowd.

[slipslidingaway]

55. Not too many people have said SP or nothing. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. are you comfusing single payer with public option?

because very few people have said single payer or nothing

[Oregone]

57. Very few? Has anyone?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. i dont know, there could be an 18 year who hasnt given up on the democratic party

or the intelligence of the american people.

[depakid]

69. "...if things stay as they are...we are going to be a.. bankrupt country in a matter of a few years

That would be an accurate take, particularly since gas prices are going to start spiking again as the rest of the world actually recovers from the recession.

[TheKentuckian]

73. I just wonder what politics they've been watching for the last generation

and why they were still hanging around based on the proposals that even our more left leaning heavy weights have put out.

Single payer makes the most sense but single payer only certainly makes you an outlier in the Democratic party when it has never been prominently promoted. I can understand a lesser of two evils mindset but it doesn't even make sense you'd thrown in with the Democrats if nothing short of Single Payer is something you will work with.

I don't get why anyone thought Single Payer was coming down the pipe anytime soon, there where no indications of that much less anything resembling a promise.

[trudyco]

74. Single payer for all is a bit different from PO for 5%. Which is it? nt

[eridani]

75. You don't get it. NOTHING AT ALL happens for four years.

Nothing. Not the public option, and not any of the subsidized private plans. This is worse than no bill at all, because Repukes have 2 election cycles to point out that despite the big, massive bill, health care continues to get worse and worse. That could easily result in complete legislative stalemate for yet another four years.

What do you think will happen to premiums for those four years when pre-existing conditions are eliminated (except for age discrimination, which is written into the law), but there are no restrictions on raising rates?

You want incrementalism instead of single payer? Try this--allow voluntary buy-in to Medicare, which can be implemented immediately.