Ted Kennedy and Rep. Markey willing to sell us out on healthcare?

[antigop]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/18/mass_health_plan_drawing_interest_as_model_for_us/

>>
With Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, an architect of the state's plan, mulling a presidential run in 2008, healthcare is likely to be a big topic in the both the GOP and Democratic presidential primaries, party officials say. The attention the Massachusetts plan is getting in individual states, especially Iowa, the site of the nation's first presidential caucuses, is also pushing the healthcare issue to the forefront.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy , Democrat of Massachusetts and the incoming chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said he will call hearings in the new Congress to explore using the Bay State plan as a national model.

And some Republican senators think the plan might help US companies compete in the global market by easing the burden of rising healthcare costs. Representative Edward Markey , Democrat of Malden, said he will push for similar hearings in the House.
>>

Ted Kennedy sold us out on the pension bill. It legalized cash balance pension plans.

Now he's willing to sell us out on healthcare, too?

[eyesroll]

1. For those of us who haven't been keeping score, can you tell me what the problem

is with the Bay State system? Or will only single payer do?

(Single payer won't pass with this President, and it probably won't pass with the next. Should we do nothing in the interim?)

[antigop]

2. Keep employers out of it

You divorce healthcare from employment.

The answer is Medicare for All.

The Dems have the majority in BOTH houses. They can pass it -- force Bush to veto it.

Forcing people to participate in a broken system is not the answer.

[William769]

9. And you don't think Medicare is broken?

[antigop]

12. Medicare has a funding problem -- yes..

And the way to fix it is to get everyone in on it.

Right now you have a people age 65 and over on Medicare -- you bring EVERYONE into the risk pool, especially younger, healthier people and you can help fix Medicare.

We need a fix for the ENTIRE SYSTEM.
And the way to do that is to get EVERYONE ON MEDICARE.

Medicare's overhead is much less than the private sector.

[William769]

14. As someone on Medicare, I can tell you the reason for the low overhead is

It doesn't cover very much.

BTW I am only 43, there are more people on Medicare than you think.

[antigop]

17. I am perfectly aware of the number of people on Medicare

And it needs more funding.

[Donnachaidh]

37. And not all doctors TAKE Medicare

So if you're in a program and cannot find a doctor? :eyes:

[Cleita]

71. That's because they keep cutting the benefits.

I hope this new Congress fixes this so that those doctors start taking Medicare again. When it's properly funded it works fine for all parties involved except the insurance companies who miss out on the premiums, which I don't care about. It worked fine during the Clinto years when my husband was covered by it. Also, in my area more doctors take Medicare than take the HMOs like Pacific Care and Blue Cross.

[bobbolink]

75. Or Medicaid. Many on Medicaid can't get health care for this reason.

Where's the outrage?

[antigop]

79. I am absolutely outraged

If we can get everyone on Medicare, we have a solution -- a REAL solution.

[bobbolink]

83. Indeed. In the meantime, will Dems and DUers not protest these cuts?

They didn't last year.

:cry:

Why is it not important?

[Donnachaidh]

98. Not until you REQUIRE *EVERY* doctor to accept Medicare payments

If you don't you'll still have plenty of people without healthcare. They'll be better off paying premiums every month, with no healthcare?:sarcasm:

[antigop]

112. Would you PLEASE read the Medicare for ALL bill?

So you know what we are talking about...

[Donnachaidh]

125. I'm IN the medicare program

I *know* what it's flaws are. Step back with the attitude -- you don't know everyone's background!

the FACT remains that IF the DOCTORS do not take Medicare patients, you will just be making payments for NO medical coverage.

[antigop]

132. Have you read the Medicare for All bill?

That's what I'm asking you to do.

[Katzenjammer]

123. Maybe you're on some other program? Medicare covers most things

I wish to hell it covered dental and ophthalmology, but I haven't seen anything else that it doesn't cover.

[antigop]

15. HR 676 -- Medicare for ALL -- Kucinich's and Conyers' bill

It has 78 co-sponsors in the House.

Senate Bill 2229 was introduced by Kennedy -- Medicare for All.

He needs to stick with that.

[Cleita]

68. This is exactly what we need to do. n/t

[NewJeffCT]

3. I agree with you

I don't think single-payer will happen here any time soon. The pharmaceutical and health insurance industries have too much clout, and the anti-universal side had easy talking points ("socialized medicine" and "rationing")

Most likely, we'd go to a Swiss-style system of private insurance, with the government guaranteeing a certain minimum standard for everybody.

[antigop]

4. WE ALREADY HAVE SINGLE PAYER

It's called Medicare. It just happens to be for people age 65 or older.

We extend Medicare -- that's the answer.

And that's what Ted and the Dems should be pushing for.

[NewJeffCT]

10. I agree that we should do that

But, I'm being realistic in my expectations as to what will actually happen.

[Cleita]

54. See my reply #52.

It's my opinion that if we start selling Medicare on the open market to employers and individuals, we can undercut the private carriers and make health care unprofitable for them. Then they will get out of the business and we can move on to single payer that is taxpayer funded.

[NewJeffCT]

76. I agree with your opinion

Medicare should be expanded to include everybody - or, at least have everybody eligible for it.

However, as I said, I do not think something like that would get through Congress (i.e., first through Republicans & DLC Dems in both houses, and then possibly filibustering senators) and would not be signed by our current president.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

163. Either that, or they'll be forced to cut their premiums

and provide more services, which would be a good thing.

Minnesota is supposed to be one of the "good" states for insurance, but all the insurance companies offer basically the same products with similar premiums and benefits. (They wouldn't be colluding, would they? Naah! :sarcasm: )

The way that CEOs and other top executives and shareholders of insurance companies rake in the money, they've got a lot of room to cut earnings before they go into the red.

[antigop]

5. The pharmaceutical and health insurance industries have too much clout,

And the only way to reduce their clout IS STOP SENDING MONEY TO THEM.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. And we do that... how?

Everyone boycotts what little insurance they already have? HA! Fat chance that'll happen.

You keep have fun in pretendland though.

[antigop]

29. We do that by extending Medicare for ALL! n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. But you can't do that without eliminating their clout!

Do you not see the problem here?!?

[antigop]

44. You don't seem to see the problem

The Dems need to work for us.

[liberaldemocrat7]

64. Do you want to knock out their clout? Use selctive boycotts.

Use selective boycotts of Eckerd, CVS, and Walgreens. Then buy from the others. Demand from Eckerd, CVS, and Walgreens a universal single payer healthcare system and don't buy their consumer products nor get medications there until their CEOs get the congress and the president to enact such a law.

You can do it but you need to spread the word and band together. Vote with your purchasing power to get what you want. See my web page in the signature.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

166. That's a secondary boycott

:shrug:

Not terribly effective in most cases.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. People don't like it because a Republican is taking credit for it

Never mind that MA's overwhelmingly Democratic legislature passed this bill.

[antigop]

32. No -- people don't like it because there is a solution

It's called Medicare for All.

Conyers and Kucinich co-sponsored the House bill.

Kennedy sponsored the Senate bill.

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. How realistic is that solution?

Would Bush sign such a bill? Would it get 60 votes in the Senate?

[antigop]

45. It depends upon

1) How much noise people are willing to make demanding it.

2) How threatened the Senators would feel about their jobs if they voted against it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. In other words, it is not a realistic option

Remember that last time someone tried drastic health care reform?

[antigop]

49. The problem wasn't as rampant as it is now

Take a look at how much healthcare premiums have risen over the last 10-15 years.

Take a look at the number of people who are uninsured or underinsured in the last 10-15 years.

[Freddie Stubbs]

124. But are those with insurance willing to give up what they have so that

others can have insurance?

[antigop]

143. Would you PLEASE read the Medicare for ALL bill? n/t

[bicentennial_baby]

92. Bingo

:thumbsup: Truth hurts, I guess.

[OzarkDem]

120. We keep hearing that same talking point

Sorry, but health care is quickly becoming beyond the ability of many to afford.

Scare tactics on health care reform will work about as well as terrorism scare tactics worked in the last election - not at all.

[Freddie Stubbs]

122. Depends on who is using the scare tactics

TV commericals and the media are one thing, but when the information is provided by someone people trust, such as the family's doctor, that is a different story.

[OzarkDem]

126. Doctors also thought medical malpractice reform would lower health care costs

and help more people afford health care coverage.

I work with physicians on a regular basis and advise them on public policy. Trust me, they are very naive, trusting and easily duped when it comes to these kinds of issues, particularly if they're in private practice. Most are very good at medicine and research, terrible at health care policy.

They are very easily convinced to communicate corporate insurance company scare tactics.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

170. Doctors? You mean like my brother?

You can almost see his blood pressure rise when he talks about the way insurance companies use every excuse in the book to deny coverage.

[KamaAina]

86. No, some people don't like it because it makes poor people pay

out-of-pocket for insurance. Not a lot, but when you're poor, every little bit hurts.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

167. No, people don't like it because it's not a solution for the real problem:

Even the people who ARE covered are paying too much for too little coverage and are therefore doing without necessary check-ups and preventative measures.

[sandnsea]

38. People who aren't sick I imagine

Oregon has a similar program as Mass, the difference is that it isn't mandated so the state doesn't have to fund everybody who is eligible. You have to wait and wait, and then hope you qualify. I don't know why people won't support something that will make the difference between not only life and death, but quality of life as well. I can only imagine they are people who either aren't sick or have good health care.

[OzarkDem]

41. Push for single payer now or forget about it later

Some of these state plans that funnel taxpayer dollars to insurance companies are terrible - nothing more than taxpayer subsidized "insurance-lite" plans. They'll make the Medicare Prescription Drug program look like a bargain.

For example, take a look at the junk health care bill the Ohio General Assembly is trying to pawn off on the public. It requires everyone to purchase private health insurance, gives government subsidies for low income people, but it also removes nearly all consumer protections for caps on premiums, co-pays and deductibles. And what happens if an insurance company decideds to jack up your deductible or co-pay? Almost nothing. They're subject to a $25,000 fine, something they'll eagerly pay if your health care bill is going to exceed that amount. Result: The cost of expensive health care is pushed back on consumers and the health care system.

Health care coverage should not be attached to employment. Many people end up becoming catastrophically ill (think "cancer diagnosis"), can't work, have no income and have incredibly high health care costs, while still being ineligible for government funded care.

If we cave now to "half-measures" for health care reform, that's exactly what we'll be stuck with for the future. It will only make it more difficult to go back and implement real and meaningful health care reform.

[antigop]

46. You got it, OzarkDem!

You have stated it EXACTLY!

[Cleita]

52. Yes, we can. We can sell Medicare on the open market.

The new funds coming in are badly needed and those people buying it would be more healthy than the elderly and those with chronic diseases it now covers. Did you know that coverage on Medicare has been cut in 2007? This is a first step by the conservatives to defund it and cripple it until it no longer exists. I hope families are getting ready to take care of grandma's final illness and the bills that it will incur because this safety net is getting closer and closer to not existing anymore.

So by selling it on the open market we can undercut the costs and sell it for about half of what private insurance and HMOs charge for more reliable coverage, a big help to health care providers who are constantly battling with privatized health care to get paid. States could buy Medicare for the uninsured if they care about their uninsured especially children.

This is purely free market and the private companies will have to compete with Medicare. Medicare though can deliver the same benefits for half the cost. However, the Massachussetts plan is to make everyone pay for their health care from private insurance companies and HMOs. These are people who can't afford health care premiums to begin with and now they will have to insure themselves. Most of the plans sold would be catastrophic policies with thousands of dollars deductibles. This means that you have to pay a premium and also for your health care out-of-pocket.

I had one of those policies before I turned 65. I never went to the doctor because I could barely afford the policy and there was no money left over for health care. This is not a solution and a big bonzanza to the bloated and greedy health care industry.

[antigop]

57. Thank you, Cleita!

Well stated.

[bicentennial_baby]

104. Question....

Open Mkt generally = Private firms, so how is this a solution?

[Cleita]

107. Since Medicare is like insurance, you buy it. I just got my

Medicare bill for next year. It's $93.50 a month. They deduct it from my Social Security. I also have to pay for a Medigap policy from a private insurer which is going to be $199.00 a month next year. I would rather that Medicare billed me for the gap insurance and give me full coverage. They can probably do it for another $93.50 a month because their administrative costs are so much less.

Right now Medicare is only for the elderly and some chronically ill people like dialysis patients. So why couldn't we sell it to employers and individuals covering those who aren't elderly and suffering from chronic illnesses? The state could buy it for those who don't have jobs or money to buy into it from traditional funds like the Medicaid fund.

The thing is that private insurers won't be able to compete so it will cut them out of the businesses, then maybe we can consolidate the health care plan into a single payer universal system.

The thing is that the bureaucracy to run this is already in place. All that will be needed is to hire more staff and open new offices for the influx. I'm sure experienced personnel could be hired from the soon to be defunct health care insurance industry.

[bicentennial_baby]

108. But what I'm saying is,

Gov't provided health insurance (which is what I think you're saying) isn't an "open market" commodity, b/c an open mkt. is composed of private firms, generally, which respond to demand forces with supply forces that maximize *profits*. It's a public good, I think, in these terms. Are you saying that the gov't should sell it to employers and individuals and states? I'm confused as to the "we" part of what you're saying, I guess. :)

[Cleita]

109. It's not an open market commodity because no one has passed

a law saying that it can be sold on the open market. That could be a law that is easier to pass though than a strict NHC law. The industry is a very powerful lobby that has all the Republican politicians and many of the Democrats in it's collective hip pocket. I think the federal government can offer this on the open market in competition with Blue Cross, Aetna etc. for the time being. After all, aren't the conservatives all about free market?

There is an organization that is advocating this. They were interviewed not too long ago on AAR and I should have written the information down and didn't. A quick google has not turned up the information but I know it's out there. Stay tuned. Either I will find it or someone on DU will have it and post it.

[bicentennial_baby]

110. Ok, I see what you're saying now...

Interesting...I'll have to think about this. I'll get back to you, definitely :)

[antigop]

113. Absolutely, Cleita!

Absolutely.

[mondo joe]

6. I don't see the selling out. It's a response that isn't perfect but is

an improvement.

Even Canada's single payer system evolved.

[antigop]

7. Forcing people to participate in a broken system IS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT

The system is BROKEN. B-R-O-K-E-N.

Forcing people to participate in a broken system is NOT THE ANSWER.

[mondo joe]

8. If it makes health care coverage accessible it is an improvement.

It is.

[sandnsea]

39. You're obviously not sick

Or you would understand that getting health care from a broken system is better than not getting health care at all.

[antigop]

47. Oh, I'm not sick. eh?

n/t

[antigop]

31. Kennedy is selling out his own bill -- S 2229 n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. You don't understand incremental change, do you?

Like it or not, the insurance industry has way too much money and power. We will not go from Point A (status quo) to Point Z (universal single payer) without going through Points B through Y first.

This is not selling us out. This is the first step in solving a corrupt system.

[antigop]

13. It is selling us out because it is catering to the corporate interests

It won't fix Medicare -- it won't FIX THE SYSTEM.

And Ted is catering to the corporate interests just like he did on the pension bill.

[mondo joe]

18. Does it have the FIX THE SYSTEM to be progress? Will it make

coverage more accessible?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. It's catering to a thing called "reality"

Until you make campaigns federally funded, this is not selling out in any way, shape, or form.

[antigop]

30. Yes, Kennedy is selling out his own bill!

He introduced S 2229 -- Medicare for All.

>.
TITLE XXII--MEDICARE FOR ALL

`SEC. 2201. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM.

`The program under this title--

`(1) ensures that all Americans have high quality, affordable health care;

`(2) ensures that all Americans have access to health care as good as their Member of Congress receives; and

`(3) reduces the cost of health care and enhances American economic competitiveness in the global marketplace.
>>

Kennedy is selling out his own bill!

[Hippo_Tron]

116. Agreed, I think federally funded campaigns are the real solution to this problem

But for now lets expand coverage for those who don't have it. Once we've taken special interest money out of our politics then we'll be able to fix a lot of things that we can't right now.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

129. Thanks HT

I was beginning to think maybe I was the crazy one...

[OzarkDem]

42. A game of 3 card monte isn't incremental change

it also isn't good health care policy, either. That's what most of these programs are. They look good going in, but by the time all the rules are re-written and the consumer protections stripped out - you end up with nothing but profits for insurance companies and lots of under-insured people.

[bobbolink]

16. I'm afraid people will have to suffer more and more deeply before they "get it"

You see the (snarky) replies here. You can imagine that the reaction from the mass of people in the US who haven't been taught the issues will likely be much the same. (Maybe I"ll be pleasantly surprised)

So, this will have to go through, and the ugly consequences felt, before people are willing to entertain the idea of actual UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

What was needed was a massive effort to educate all, much like Gore did with global warming, in order to raise the level of consciousness. There hasn't been and won't be that effort, so there will be much more suffering, and many more deaths before people wake up to the need for *REAL* health care.

[antigop]

20. I agree, bobbolink -- a massive effort to educate is needed

And the money contributed by the pharma and insurance companies needs a spotlight on it.

Their contributions on driving the agenda.

[bobbolink]

22. So much hope has been pinned on the Dems congressional win

I wish it weren't so, but I think this is the beginning of seeing just how disappointed we will be.

Ted Kennedy has done and said some great things.

But he is also either willing to sell us out, or lacks the staff to really grasp some of these issues.

I guess the only hope is that with Ted behind the selling of the mass model, there will be so many screams of "Socialist liberal" that it won't go far.

Then, that would take the PNHP seizing the moment and mounting a HUGE educational effort.

Do you see this happening?

sigh....

suffering, suffering and more suffering...

I guess we could entertain ourselves with gambling about how high the death rate will rise...

Along with this, do you see the massive effort to forestall further cuts to Medicaid?
:sarcasm:

[antigop]

23. bobbolink -- we need a movement like Al Gore's

Remember how he wanted to hire 1,000 people to take his global warming presentation on the road?

That's what we need -- something similar.

[bobbolink]

25. Who will get it going? PNHP is the only ones I can think of,

and they've had lots of time to do this.

ZIP

I'm not holding my breath....

Maybe I'm just tired...

[antigop]

28. I was hoping someone with some bucks would step forward

and take this on.

Instead, all we are going to get is a bunch of disinformation from the corporate media.

[mondo joe]

35. You can volunteer with Health Care for All.

At least in several states.

[Kat45]

111. The MA Health Care for All group signed on to that MA health plan

I went to a panel discussion explaining the new plan, which I decided was not a very good one. The representative for Health Care for All was advocating the MA plan. His attitude was that we couldn't get universal health care right now; this was the best they could get and he thought it was a good plan that would help people. I was surprised to hear him touting the plan; I tended to agree with a couple of others on the panel who did not like the plan.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

175. I HATE that attitude!

One of the primary principles of negotiating is "Always ask for more than you think you can realistically get. Let the other side say 'no.;"

By signing on to the half-assed Romney plan, MA Health Care for All is effectively saying "no" to itself.

They should come out loudly for a Canadian single-payer system and negotiate from there, not say, "Okay, Governor, we accept your plan," and then the Republicansa say, "So will you accept a cut in the number of conditions covered?"

If they kept insisting on a Canadian-style plan all through the negotiations, they'd have a better chance of forcing the Republicans to say things like, "Okay, okay, you get full coverage for mammograms and colonoscopies for people in the right age groups."

[antigop]

180. Thank you, Lydia!

Yes, you always negotiate that way.

[bobbolink]

56. I've been hoping, also. I'm just fresh out of hope.

You see for yourself, the disinformation right here, spoken with such disdain.

Just so you know.... one good thing has come out of this post of yours... I mentioned this to a friend, who didn't know about the Mass. health care, explained it to her, and now she is very disappointed in Kennedy (to put it mildly).

So, I gave her a number of a retired physician who is involved with PNHP, and co-founded our state Health Care initiative, and this friend is now going to get her church group to sponsor a talk by this physician on Universal Single-Payer Health Care, and invite other local groups to attend.

Not an earth-shaking thing, but... a step in the right direction, and it happened because of this post of yours.

Thank you! :pals:

[antigop]

62. Hang in there, bobbolink!

We've got to get the health care problem fixed in this country.

We can't give up.

[bobbolink]

72. WHen the announcement recently that Medicaid will again be cut..

gets --what-- maybe three responses, none of them into taking action?

That's why I feel hopeless on this.

It's just not important.

Much more important to spend energy "DUing" some internet poll, than the same energy spent organizing a resistance to the poorest of the poor being cut further.

:shrug:

I just don't got it anymore...

edited to add: that's why I appreciate your effort. And, people like Cleita, who have been faithful on this stuff!

[WilliamPitt]

19. How is calling for hearings selling out?

[antigop]

21. Because Kennedy already introduced s 2229

He introduced S 2229 -- Medicare for All.

Now he "will call hearings in the new Congress to explore using the Bay State plan as a national model."

He's selling out his own bill!!

[WilliamPitt]

33. So you're a fan of the authoritarian model of government?

Sorry for the straw man there, but I'm trying to make a point. You seem to feel that Kennedy and Markey should just say "NO" to this Romney plan and shitcan it. That'd feel good for those of us who think the plan is crap, but that is antithetical to the process of open government.

They call hearings, analyze the thing from soup to nuts, and people get to hear all the details for themselves. That's how it is supposed to work - informed decisions.

Also, you're overlooking three key words in this story: "Kennedy," "Markey," and "Iowa."

Kennedy and Markey are from Massachusetts, as I am, and I can tell you flat-out that Romney's health care plan is about as popular as scabes around here. So Kenedy and Markey call hearings on it, which will be paid close attention to in Iowa (read: early primary/caucus state), and beat Romney to death with the details.

Thus, Romney's assumed 2008 run is trailing smoke before he steps out the door.

Hm?

[antigop]

50. Sorry, Will -- I don't believe it

I frankly don't trust Kennedy.

He sold us out on the pension bill -- and I believe he will sell us out on this one, too.

[antigop]

51. yeah, Will, just like Kennedy being the chief negotiator for the awful pension bill

Yep.

We can trust that Kennedy won't sell us out.

Yep.

Sure we can.

[bobbolink]

58. sorry you're getting all this flak.

:(

As I said, people apparently are willing to suffer more (and willing for others to suffer) until they have hurt so much, that they're willing to listen to the best plan.

:shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

60. Do you consider my post "flak"?

Pretty low standard you have for "flak," if that's the case.

Disagreement = "flak" these days, I guess. Too bad this is a discussion forum. It'd all be so much easier without the pesky discussions.

Or something.

(by the way, *this* post is flak)

[bobbolink]

61. Yes.

You're good at snark.

And, now, I expect it directed at me.

Have a good day.

[WilliamPitt]

66. No, you've had your dose for the day.

;)

But I am curious: my post included thoughts on the larger ideas of participatory democracy (i.e. hearings and informed debate), as well as a tactical analysis of why two Massachusetts Democrats would be interested in tagging Romney before he gets out of the gate.

How is this flak, in your mind? Genuinely curious. And if you point to the "authoritarian" comment, read past it to the apology and recognition of rhetorical over-reach.

[Cleita]

69. The Physicians for a National Health Program has the

most comprehensive information out there. If you familiarize yourself with the articles you will see why this is an idea whose time as come and why the Massachussetts plan is a big bonanza for the private health care companies, but does little to provide real health care access to those who need health care, the ill.

Here's the website: http://www.pnhp.org

There are many other good websites but this one is the best IMHO.

You are at the age that you haven't felt the health care pinch yet. It starts happening when you are about forty five and your health care coverage becomes less comprehensive and more expensive. Eventually, by the time you reach your fifties, your health care coverage might become non-extistent and you will have to dig into your own pocket for it. Then you realize what a joke our present system is.

[WilliamPitt]

77. That

answers exactly zero % of the question I put forth above.

[Cleita]

80. If Harvard Medical School can't answer your questions, I

don't know who can. Kennedy IMHO is selling out to the HMO, private health insurances and pharma industries just like Kerry did with his idea that giving everyone the same health plan as Congress again a very costly to taxpayers bonanza for those same entities, like the for crap prescription drug plan for seniors that the drug industry wrote. I found it so heinous that I refuse to participate in it in protest even though as a senior citizen on a fixed income I need some help.

When my husband was alive, we had to spend several hundreds of dollars a month for shots he needed to keep him alive. I was hoping a drug plan through Medicare would help seniors like us to meet these expenses, but it doesn't. It's just as well that he died because I don't know how I would have obtained the medication he increasingly needed today.

I do hope you will go through the website when you have time with an open mind as to what they are proposing. I have been following this since Hillary Clinton's plan tanked. They have the best solution and most cost effective solution to our health care conundrum. You never know. You might even want to write an article about it, which could help to educate people on what the real problems and costs are.

I can only post what I research on DU. You have a much bigger readership. Here is their article on the Massachussets plan.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/october/healthy_skepticism.php

[antigop]

82. Great idea, Cleita!

Will admitted that Romney's plan isn't popular.

Will should write an article as to why.

[bobbolink]

84. That website has all the relevant information. I agree.. if that doesn't answer

the questions, then.....

I think I go back to..... the US is going to have to hurt very badly before people are ready to actually entertain new ideas.

In the meantime, many of us die for lack of health care, and it gets a big yawn.

I repeat the URL--maybe this time someone will be willing to do some reading:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/october/healthy_skepticism.php

:shrug:

Or, just more snarking.... whatever....

[Cleita]

87. 18,000 people a year die from lack of health care

of readily curable diseases.

[bobbolink]

93. Yes, many deaths. There are doctors who say the figure is MUCH higher than that!

I've heard drs who say the death rate from lack of health care is more like 120,000.

Either figure is obscene!

Yet, it doesn't garner the attention that the invasion and occupation of Iraq does.

That's why I really don't have much hope for change in this area for a long time to come.

And, if the 'Murkin people settle for compromises, it'll take even longer.

:cry:

[antigop]

63. bobbolink -- I want the health care problem fixed

I want a real solution, not what Massachusetts has.

And I don't trust Kennedy after what he did to us on the pension bill.

[bobbolink]

65. I got ya, loud and clear. I'm just grateful you're keeping up this effort

in the face of so much disinformation!

:yourock:

[G_Leo_Criley]

40. Kennedy's s 2229 ... Medicare for All

Hearings will perhaps show whether this could be best accomplished using some form of the Massachusetts model. A form where each person pays what they can afford to buy into the Medicare coverage.

People have long talked about one possible fix for the system being that of allowing everyone to buy into Medicare.

Do you think that might be what these hearings will focus on? How to accomplish the switch to everyone buying into Medicare, each according to their means?

Maybe hearings will allow these options to be aired, discussed and considered, and that makes sense to me.

Saying that Kennedy has sold us out on this issue that has defined his time in the senate is just not fair. When no one believed in health care for all, Kennedy was slogging through the trenches on this one.

glc



edited to change "that" to "whether" in first sentence

[bobbolink]

59. Are you familiar with HR 676?

Why settle for *more* people being hurt?

Please look into HR 676---Conyers has a very good model here, he's signed up lots of co-sponsors, and we don't need to sell ourselves short.

[G_Leo_Criley]

74. why settle for more people being hurt?

More people will be hurt if healthcare for all isn't done right and if it doesn't succeed!

For me, it's more important to look at the options and then act on what can be done to actually get health care to all -- To make it a reality.

It's no secret that the "Massachusetts model" is nowhere close to ideal. Forcing people without any money to buy health insurance is the latest tactic that the con-men have to avoid really dealing with the issue. What's wrong with laying that truth out there for all to see? (Or, what's wrong with taking anything good from that plan, if there is anything good about it?) There's a lot to be said for strategy and tactics.

The Conyers and Kennedy plans each have essentially the same goal. As with most things in congress, this will be decided after hearings where the benefits of each are discussed in committees. Hopefully, somehow, a bill that can please all will be hammered out.

Getting coverage for those who can't afford a cent towards their own healthcare is the deciding factor, for me. If the final bill will do that, I'll feel that we've won, depending on whatever else the bill says. (And as long as * doesn't add some bizarre signing statement to it.)

glc

[OzarkDem]

43. Sherrod Brown is going to be on this committee

He knows how to expose the folly of relying on "for - profit" insurance companies to provide health care.

[antigop]

53. Interview with Kucinich on his bill

http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20061128_rep_dennis_kucinich_tackles_health_care/

[Cleita]

67. Great article. Thanks antigop.n/t

[WI_DEM]

55. Those DINO's!!

[warrens]

70. I'm willing to look at anything that might work

I'm with Obama on a single-payer plan, but I'm open to other approaches. Accusing someone of selling out for considering alternatives is rather shabby, don't you think?

[bobbolink]

73. I guess sometimes the truth loooks "shabby"

Don't shoot the messenger.

[antigop]

78. Kennedy is selling out his own bill

He introduced S 2229 -- Medicare for All.

Now he wants to look at the Massachusetts plan.

Looks like the lobbyists are getting to him.

[bobbolink]

81. THat's what I don't understand. With his $$$, he doesn't have to pander to

the lobbyists.

So, why does he get caught in this, along with a few other gaffes??

I don't get it. :shrug:

At any rate, whatever the reason, I've handed out the Capitol Hill Switchboard numbers for people to call and voice their concern, disbelief, outrage.... etc.

1 877 851 - 6437

1 877 762 8762

1 800 828 0498

THere are obviously people here who will call and urge him on in this folly, so those of us who are against it need to step up our efforts.

Thanks again for your work on this! :thumbsup:

[mondo joe]

106. Or maybe he believes in transparency in government and hearing of data

before deciding.

[antigop]

114. I asked a question in the original post

It has a question mark after it. Go look.
Now you can believe anything you want about Kennedy.

I don't trust him -- not after his sell-out on the pension bill.

And the way the article was worded he is looking to see how the Massachusetts plan can be used as a national model.

Looks like the lobbyists have gotten to him.

There is no need to see how the Massachusetts plan can be used as a national model WHEN HE ALREADY SPONSORED A BILL TO FIX THE HEALTHCARE PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY!

[mondo joe]

127. So don't trust him. What makes you think TRUST is called for with any elected

official anyway? He's a representative, not your boyfriend.

Senator Kennedy is calling for HEARINGS. What is your problem with hearing out ideas?

[antigop]

133. Because Kennedy already introduced S 2229

Which is a solution he backed.

[mondo joe]

140. Again, what is your problem with hearing out ideas?

Just wondering.

[antigop]

150. Because Kennedy already introduced s 2229 n/t

[mondo joe]

153. So what? Is hearing out ideas and transparent government a bad thing now?

[antigop]

156. Because he had a solution -- S 2229

And now he wants to explore using the Massachusetts system as a national model.

That's why.

[mondo joe]

157. Non answer. Please describe what is wrong with hearing out ideas even if

you have your own.

[antigop]

158. The original post asked a question --

Will Kennedy and Markey be willing to sell us out on healthcare?

That was the question.

So your answer is "NO". Fine. That's your opinion, I take it.

[mondo joe]

159. So you can't identify anything wrong with holding hearings to hear out all ideas?

Then they're not selling us out.

Question answered.

[antigop]

160. I have answered

The fact that he wants to explore how the Massachusetts system can be used as a national model WHEN HE ALREADY HAD SPONSORED A BILL FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL indicates to me he is willing to sell us out.

I'm sorry if you don't understand this.

[mondo joe]

162. I know he has a bill. The question is what is wrong with hearing out other

ideas?

I always thought thoughtful informed decision making was a GOOD THING.

And you have not been able to demonstrate why it's not.

[antigop]

164. And I have already answered your question multiple times

Again, the original post asked the question, "Are Kennedy and Markey willing to sell us out on healthcare?"

That was the question.

So I take it your answer is "NO". That's your opinion.

[mondo joe]

169. No, you never answered it. What if anything is wrong with hearing other ideas

even if you have your own?

[antigop]

172. Yes, I have answered it

I take it your answer to the THE ORIGINAL QUESTION POSED IS "NO".

OK, that's your opinion.

[antigop]

165. The bill is S 2229

That is the bill -- Medicare for ALL.

[bicentennial_baby]

85. Oh jeebus f'n christ....

Not even worthy of a reply....WillPitt said it all for me anyway, strangely enough :)

[Cleita]

89. That's interesting considering he didn't say anything very

authoritive of it.

[bicentennial_baby]

90. Well I happen to agree with him on this issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2938969&mesg_id=2939455

Also, I live here in MA, and frankly, if you had to see the shape of healthcare in our state, you might have an idea of why so many people are open to having something, anything, to help them. I personally don't support Willard Romney's plan, but I can't find fault in trying to do something to fix the system, even if it is for craven political gain. :shrug:

[Cleita]

91. I can see your conundrum, but they are talking of using this

plan as a model for the whole country and it's just plain wrong. There is a better model. All they are doing is pandering to the insurance industry, which IMHO need to be run out of the business. They have been solely responsible for our high health care costs and mostly broken system that we have today.

[bicentennial_baby]

94. Oh I agree

But, I also believe in letting the plan be aired and examined for all to see, and I don't see the hearings and whatnot as selling out necessarily.

Fact is, there are *some* people here who support the plan, probably many who don't quite understand its broader implications....So, Kennedy and Markey, et al, do their thing, expose it for what it is (hopefully), try to get it changed (hopefully), and *maybe* we can find a better solution.

What I do know is that these two men have done a hell of a lot for Massachusetts over the years, and I'm not going to bash them for this one item. Let's see how it plays out, and then judge their efforts, I say. :)

[G_Leo_Criley]

95. yep

well said bicentennial_baby!

glc

[bobbolink]

97. "hopefully" "hopefully" "maybe"

How many deaths in those hopefullies and maybes?

[bicentennial_baby]

99. It's a start...

You're very caustic, y'know that? I'm being realistic, sorry. You can't get everything immediately, politics doesn't work like that. Yeah, I know, it sucks, people die, etc. But the reality is that there is probably not a majority of politicians willing to deal with this issue, so we have to take it step-by-step, and make gains where we can. The alternative is doing nothing. Which would you prefer?

[bobbolink]

100. They'll "DEAL" if We The People demand it.

Thanks for the "so what" about the deaths.

But, you're not caustic. :eyes: *THAT'S* what I'm responding to!

Maybe until/unless it's someone in your own family.

I posted a link to a video about this "incremental" business you advocate. Maybe it would be worth your time?

Or the deaths are much more acceptable than taking some time to learn about it.

[bicentennial_baby]

101. Bwahahahaha!

Oh, you're not even for real, are you? Yeah, my dad has had MS since I was born, my mother had brain surgery last week, and they are f'n swimming in medical bills. My GF is mentally ill, and barely getting by on disability. You have no idea who the fuck you are talking to. I have sat in MA Community Health Center waiting rooms for 5+ hours for an appt (for myself), and sat in MA emergency rooms for 5-10 hrs for help b/c they are so clogged with the uninsured. So please, get off of your "poor me" horse, and realize that many of us also have a stake in this. And additionally, I understand the realities of both economics and politics, which you may be well served to learn about.

[bobbolink]

102. THen keep putting it on hold.

There is a GOOD solution, but waiting and waiting is what you're willing to do.

Good luck on that.

byebye

[bicentennial_baby]

103. So, you didn't understand my post?

Yes, I understand *personally* the plight of the non/under-insured...And, I also understand how politics and economics work in a capitalist democracy. *We the people* chose to let this type of system develop and become the monster that it is, but also, revolutions are relatively rare in human history. So no, I'm not holding my breath on it happening here in the U.S. re: healthcare, sorry.

But you've probably put me on ignore by now, as I've heard the you don't "listen to silliness" Your loss on actual dialogue...

[mondo joe]

105. How many deaths while we wait for your perfect model to be accepted?

Just wondering.

[antigop]

115. And I'm telling you Kennedy sold us out on the pension bill

And I don't trust him on healthcare.

[bicentennial_baby]

119. Good for you

Just b/c it's your opinion doesn't make it real, I hope you know. And trust him, or don't, no difference to me :)

[antigop]

121. And if you want to believe he's not selling out, go right ahead

Fool me once....

[mondo joe]

130. It's weird that you at once can't trust him, but do trust him on his bill.

Make up your mind.

Or is this whole thread about you feeling jilted?

[antigop]

134. No, I don't trust him at all

He had a bill which he SPONSORED.

Now he is sabotaging his own bill, asking for hearings as to how the Massachusetts plan can be used as a national model.

Sounds to me as if the lobbyists are getting to him.

I guess he is a "flip-flopper".

[mondo joe]

139. What are you doing about this issue, BTW? Volunteering with Health Care for All?

Anything?

[antigop]

141. What I'm doing about this issue isn't the point

Nice try to change the topic, though.

The original post asked whether Ted Kennedy is and Markey are willing to sell us out on healthcare.

[mondo joe]

144. So this is just a whinefest about Kennedy not doing what you want him to do

rather than constructive solutions?

Okay.

[antigop]

146. Not a whinefest -- I asked a question n/t

[mondo joe]

147. Here's an answer: Holding hearings does not = selling out.

[antigop]

148. Your opinion n/t

[bobbolink]

190. INteresting... you're accused of "whinefest"?? When so many Drs

are fully behind the Universal Single Payer model, and HR 676!!

Keep "whining" then, cuz you're in great company! Those Drs are no dummies!

:yourock:

[mondo joe]

195. And most physicians would welcome the MA style system over what

we have now, or over nothing.

[Cleita]

88. Video of a Harvard doctor's take on the plan.

http://www.pnhp.org/multimedia/

Scroll down to the fourth video.

"Dr. Steffie Woolhandler talks about the Massachusetts Healthcare Bill on CounterSpin"

She has the clearest explanation yet on what is wrong with the Massachussetts plan and some things that are right.

[antigop]

117. Thank you, Cleita! n/t

[bobbolink]

96. "There are those who think these changes can be made incrementally.."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jB0Vn_BppwM

Time to watch.

[antigop]

118. Thank you, bobbolink!

As mentioned in the video, incremental changes won't work.

[newportdadde]

128. So how does this work exactly? Everyone required by law to purchase own insurance, like a car?

Is it that everyone is required to purchase some type of minimum policy?

Here is the deal, as companies downsize and have the baby boomers retire their 'legacy' costs increase, now I'm in the camp that thinks they should have planned ahead just like all of us have to in our own budgeting but whatever.. so remaining employees pay out of the nose and costs increase for the employer.

Now you can handle this one of two ways:

(1)Some type of national system which allows all of us to pool our risk and allows all of us to apply pressure to drug companies to lower prices and give a group rate for 300 million

(2)Companies say fuck it your on your own buy your own individual policy, here is a crappy amount of money that won't actually cover your costs to go do it and then from that point forward we are done, do it yourself and here is a 2.5% raise.

I am of the opinion that American industries will move forward with option 2. Things will get really nasty over the period of say one or two generations and finally we will end up at universal care.

[bobbolink]

131. "Things will get really nasty over the period of say one or two generations and finally we will end

up at universal care."

Sadly, I agree with you. It's what I said earlier in this thread.... people will have to hurt a hell of a lot more before they are willing to come to grips with their fear of change, and institute a more compassionate health care system.

Just reading the fearful responses here shows the writing on the wall.

Too bad about all those thousands who will die first.

Oh well.....

[antigop]

136. Agreed, bobbolink

And I find it amazing that people are arguing here who evidently haven't even read Kucinich's, Conyers', and Kennedy's bills.

[bobbolink]

Raygun did a great job of slinging the propaganda!

It's truly amazing how much people "know", and therefore aren't willing to even entertain the idea of researching other possibilities, because they "know" it won't work. :(

I expect that of the RW, but it's so deflating to see people who consider themselves as "open", "aware", "progressive" getting so bound up in so much fear.

Fear of change.

Get out the plastic and duct tape.

Fear.

Again I say, we need an Al Gore of Universal Health Care!

We need an Al Gore of Homelessness!

We need an Al Gore of all these desperate issues.

From whence cometh our help.... :) :hi: :)

I truly believe it will happen when people decide to DEMAND it.

I volunteered for a while with a Universal Health Care group, and made lots of calls to various organizations to get them involved in the effort. They were all interested and glad I called, and wanted to tell me all their sad stories about the lack of Health Care. But, when it came time to actually sign on and join with us, so many of the --the majority-- had reasons why they couldn't do that. So, I saw that our congresscritters, including the Dems, are skating from this because people won't stand up and DEMAND it. They are still at the point of prefering to gripe about it.

People like you and Cleita are doing a lot to work to bring awareness, but there is only so much you can do until/unless people hurt enough to be willing to put aside all the snark and fear and GO FOR IT.

It's just sad.

It will happen when people DEMAND it.

Thanks for all your efforts! Much appreciated!

:applause:

[Armstead]

135. Mass Healthcare Plan Sucks

It forces people to get insurance plan. A lot of poorer people here are scared shitless about how they're going to pay for it.

Yes, it includes low-income plans, but a lot of people are going to fall tyhrough the cracks for that.

If we're going to have government-backed healthcare (which we should) then it shouldn't hurt the very people it is intended to help.

[antigop]

138. Thank you, Armstead

And according to the article in the original post, Kennedy "will call hearings in the new Congress to explore using the Bay State plan as a national model."


He had already sponsored S 2229 Medicare for ALL.

NOW HE WANTS TO EXPLORE THE BAY STATE PLAN AS A NATIONAL MODEL??????????

[bobbolink]

189. People will be forced to choose between lousy "insurance" and groceries,

between being "legal" and paying their heat and telephone bills.

It's just plain criminal.

And this is what happens when people are sold on "incremental".

"If we're going to have government-backed healthcare (which we should) then it shouldn't hurt the very people it is intended to help. "

You said a mouthful! How astute! :hi: You'd think that would be a simple concept, eh? The amount of brainwashing is so sad.

An elderly friend of mine, when we were discussing the difference between insurance companies and Universal Single Payer, thought a bit and said, "Well, Jesus never demanded proof of insurance before healing people." :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

We really could do this, if we wanted to.

[IronLionZion]

137. Some of the most radical left-wing liberals in America

serve on the Massachusetts state legislature and passed the bill. The governor of Massachusetts is one of the most useless state-wide political offices a politician can hold. The legislature passed it, old Mitt just took credit for it because he wants to be president, and that little tidbit is lost on the "single-payer or nothing" crowd.

Sure it's not perfect....but it's exponentially better than what we have now.

Immediate effects of requiring everyone have insurance:

Less crowded emergency rooms, which we desperately need. Lives depend on this.

Preventative care and regular checkups are affordable and enthusiastically encouraged, therefore conditions won't worsen to the point of requiring major medical procedures, which is what destroys people.

The healthcare providers' costs are lower since everyone is insured so they won't bill the insurance companies as much as they are now, so the cost of insurance will decrease. (This will require oversight to ensure no one tries to cheat. Free market forces WILL lower costs for everyone involved.)

The general health of Americans improves significantly and we as a nation feel more secure in regards to healthcare issues.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and we're not going to get universal healthcare overnight. And this plan is something we can put in place right now.

[Armstead]

142. No -- It mixes the worst aspects of both systems

Progress would be moving in the right direction by, say offering optional and affordasble plans to everyone, based on income.

The Mass plan mixes the worst of both.

It eliminates the freedom of private healthcare. It imposes Big Brothr Nanny State requirements on people.

It brings the greed and profit movtive of the private system into the public sphere. Therefore Insurers not have the same sanctioned power to abuse consumers as auto insurance.

[antigop]

145. Thank you, Armstead! n/t

[IronLionZion]

149. there will ALWAYS be private healthcare, even with single-payer

private providers will still be private.

The "nanny state" would just be to require everyone have health insurance. We require everyone with a car to have car insurance. We require children to have basic checkups and vaccinations.

If we went one step further and detached health insurance from employment, then we have the choice of which company to go with. And each of us could pick one we like best. If we have a choice, then there is incentive for the insurance companies to keep us satisfied or we'll go to their competition.

[Armstead]

152. It's not a matter of whetner private insurance exists

It's a matter of their having a captive market.

Your solution relies on the two worst aspects of both ideologies. The authoritarian impositions of a Nanny State and the authoritian impositions of Free Market Pirates.

For what it's worth, my answer would be to make a form of sliding-scale, income based insurance available to everyone as an option. That would both make it universally accessible and provide a competitive baseline for the private insurance market.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

182. You need a fucking reality check from someone who already is "insured' in

what is supposed to be one of the "best" states for health care, Minnesota.

I have health insurance, such as it is. I pay $200 a month for a policy with a $5000 deductible. After $5000, the insurance company pays just 80%, so if I incurred a $50,000 hospital bill (easy to do), I would pay 20% of $45,000, or $9,000. So I'd be $14,000 out of pocket WITH insurance. I used to have a $1000 deductible, but like several friends in the same situation (over age 55, self-employed), I came to find it unaffordable on a monthly basis, as our rates went up, even though we NEVER used up our deductible.

Oh, yes, and as a self-employed person, I already can deduct my premiums from my income tax, so any plan that touts that as a great new improvement is not going to impress me.

By the way, none of the plans available to me pay for preventive care or regular check-ups, and that means shelling out up to $200 for an office visit and $300-$1000 for a test.

The healthcare providers' costs are lower since everyone is insured so they won't bill the insurance companies as much as they are now, so the cost of insurance will decrease. (This will require oversight to ensure no one tries to cheat. Free market forces WILL lower costs for everyone involved.) This paragraph makes no sense at all. If everyone is insured, doctors will have to bill insurance companies for everyone, which will greatly increase their costs, at least on my planet.

Are there provisions in the bill that force insurance companies to stop using medically untrained clerical staff to decide whether a procedure or condition is covered or not?

Are there provisions that will prevent insurance companies from denying an individual coverage for a certain condition and insisting that the spouse's insurance policy should cover that?

Are there provisions in the bill that force the companies to pay for preventive care and medically necessary tests?

Are there provisions in the bill that substitute reasonable co-pays for deductibles?

If not, I'm decidedly not impressed.

[IronLionZion]

187. Lydia, believe it or not, you are one of the lucky ones in our current system

Consider all those good folks who DON'T live in Minnesota and DON'T have any health insurance at all. Why doesn't your insurance pay for checkups? It would be in their best interest to keep you healthy so they don't have to shell out for major medical procedures like surgery later on.

If everyone is insured, doctors will have to bill insurance companies for everyone, which will greatly increase their costs, at least on my planet. Lydia, it's very expensive to treat uninsured patients! If everyone has insurance, the hospitals have someone they can bill. The costs of billing are worthwhile when you collect on those bills!

Don't get me wrong here. I fucking hate the insurance industry. They are one of the few industries that succeed by NOT serving their customers. So, I will happily concede the point that single-payer would be most ideal. Personally, I think a free-market cash-only system would work for minor stuff like checkups and single-payer would work for major stuff like surgery. And in a perfect world we wouldn't need the insurance companies trying to turn a profit by not paying for our healthcare. It's not a perfect world and the healthcare providers DO bill a lot for healthcare.

So, we could easily die of old age while waiting to get single-payer sometime in the very distant future or we can take this now.

[antigop]

193. You do realize, don't you.....

how close California came to passing their bill?

And with some effort, they might just do it next year?

It was because of grassroots support.

link:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/29/MNGBSKR3RA1.DTL

edited to add link

[IronLionZion]

194. yes, I read that on DU before and sincerely hope they get it sometime soon.

That just might be the example to prove to everyone nation-wide that it can work. California is usually on the bleeding edge of progress.

California, like Massachusetts, has some of the most liberal Democrats in the country on their state legislature. But only corporate-financed candidates can make it all the way to Governor. It's too bad Arnold vetoed it, but Angelides didn't support it either.

Maybe lobbying and ethics reform may crack the insurance industry's stranglehold on our politicians and we'll see more progress.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

197. I don't know why my insurance co. doesn't pay for checkups

It's infuriating, because they recently came out with a product for twentysomethings that charges peanuts and DOES pay for an annual checkup. :grr:

What I meant by universal insurance making life more expensive was that having more patients with MORE insurance companies, as opposed to single payer, would add to doctors' costs.

I don't really feel lucky. Paying those insurance premiums every month is equivalent in cost to an office visit, but because of them, I can't afford an office visit. Catch-22, huh?

[antigop]

151. To take a look at Kennedy's S 2229 bill

Go to thomas.loc.gov

Under Search Bill Text, enter S 2229
and click on the circle in front of Bill Number
Then Click on the SEARCH button


That should take you to it.

[IronLionZion]

154. He introduced it in January and still has NO co-sponsors

Maybe Senator-elect Bernie Sanders will join him next month.

[antigop]

155. Well, I think the bill have to be re-introduced with the next Congress n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

161. The Ironic Thing Is That National Health Care Has Been Ted Kennedy's Cardinal Issue Since 1962

Sometimes the craziness here amazes me but no longer surprises me.


Peace

DSB

[antigop]

168. And what's ironic about it?

The fact that now he wants to explore using the Massachusetts system as a national model?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

171. The Fact

The fact that he has been slammed for it by an internet poster.

[antigop]

173. Slammed for what?

Wanting to explore the Massachusetts system as a national model?

[mondo joe]

174. Yes, we wouldn't want the senate to EXPLORE IDEAS, would we?

[antigop]

177. HA, I'm sorry if you still don't understand the question

Once again, the original post asked the question, "Are Kennedy and Markey willing to sell us out on healthcare?"

I take it your answer to the ORIGINAL QUESTION is "NO".

[mondo joe]

179. I understood your question, and am addressing it.

Keep your "original post" defense if you like - you're certainly not prepared to discuss the issue.

[antigop]

181. I have discussed it -- over and over

Please go read S 2229.

The original post asked a question.

I take it your answer to the ORIGINAL QUESTION is "NO".

OK. That's your opinion.

[mondo joe]

183. I didn't ask you what your original question was.

And you're unwilling to discuss the matter. So thanks.

[antigop]

185. I have discussed it

The thread started with the question, "Are Kennedy and Markey willing to sell us out on healthcare?"

I take it your answer to the ORIGINAL QUESTION is "NO".

OK, that's your opinion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

176. By Their Words Ye Shall Know Them

"Ted Kennedy sold us out on the pension bill. It legalized cash balance pension plans.

Now he's willing to sell us out on healthcare, too?."



-antigop


I assume after working tirelessly to provide health care for everyone for forty four years EMK will embrace even stopgap or limited programs that move us closer to achieving that goal.


I assume he operates on the philosophy that you shouldn't let the "perfect be the enemy of the good."

[antigop]

178. Well, selling out is selling out n/t

So I take it your answer to the ORIGINAL QUESTION POSED, is "NO"???

[Lydia Leftcoast]

184. Nor should you let the half-assed be the enemy of the acceptable

:grr:

[antigop]

186. Thank you, Lydia.

That was priceless.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

188. Respectfully If Ted Kennedy Is One Of The Bad Guys We're "Screwn"

eom

[antigop]

192. Yes, we are "Screwn" if..

Kennedy sells us out on healthcare as he did on the awful pension bill.

[bobbolink]

191. Not to mention all the DRs who are against it!!!

But, I suppose their knowledge counts for little...

:shrug:

[antigop]

196. Amazing, isn't it, bobbolink?

...that people are defending the Massachusetts system.

Ya think maybe there are some that have a vested interest in it?

[Cleita]

198. That's a good possibility.

The health insurance industry is notorious for hiring publicists to spread propaganda about how bad NHC is. They plant articles in print media, sprinkle it on the internet on websites like this one and in general make people start doubting if NHC is a good idea. In the case of Mass, it's such a big bonanza for the insurance industry that for sure they are going to sing its praises whenever they see it being criticized.