Single-Payer Universal NON-PROFIT Health Care

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Nothing else is acceptable and functional for ALL PEOPLE and no amount of political obfuscation can hide that fact.

[HelenWheels]

1. There is no other way

all others will just lead to more of the same old crap - profit of people!

[havocmom]

16. Profit at the cost of people's health

When bean counters and board members decide on medical care instead of doctors, people suffer needlessly, but for profit.

[FormerDittoHead]

2. We're not going to get there in one step. Whose plan will get us there the quickest?

That's why I voted for Hillary. I don't want to debate that, because I now don't think she'll win.

Most everyone here wants universal non-profit, etc.

Having an "opt-in" "opt-out" system is what we have now. Universal, yes, means *everyone* must pay into the system according their ability to pay.

What's relevant are the things we can actually do, and how those available, politically realistic choices could LEAD us to universal.

My Mother in law has been in the hospital since last November. One single hospital, (Jefferson in Philly) and IMO, their record keeping is a mess.

Do you think we can change the way all doctors and hospitals keep their records overnight?

Hillary recognized that, and had a plan.

Many other "steps" must be taken, but simply, Hope is not enough, you have to have a plan TOWARD universal...

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. You are focusing on the 'universal' not the 'non-profit'.

Hillary's plan is the worse, because it will establish a bureaucracy that funnels the funds to the 'for-profit' insurance industry.

You talk about record keeping? By keeping the profit motive in, mandating the purchase for any of a hundred different providers, each providing a dozen different plans with different coverage, there is NO WAY that mandate can be enforced unless a bureaucracy is established to maintain files on every single citizen. Otherwise, what's to prevent someone from NOT buying insurance? None of the hundreds of providers would have any reason to think that person is not covered by one of the others - and it would only come to light when they needed emergency treatment.

Now, if there was a single-payer not-for-profit taxpayer funded system, every doctor's office would have one set of paperwork, no matter who walked in the door. My dentist has a small office - just him, three dental assistants, and THREE BOOKKEEPER/RECEPTIONISTS. It takes half his staff to run the paperwork because of the myriad different plans.

And once the bureaucracy is in place to funnel our money to the insurance company CEO's vacation home, it will sustain itself - that's what bureaucracies do.

If you have two bad plans, choose the one that doesn't set itself in concrete.

[bvar22]

13. Hillary's plan will make it HARDER to move to Non-Profit.

It codifies and legitimizes an immoral "For Profit" system.
It is a step in the WRONG direction.

There is also no need to "build a system from scratch" as Obama insists.
Simply expand MediCare to ALL Americans.
MediCare is efficient, socially equitable, and the infrastructure is already in place.

Don't settle for LESS.
Demand the BEST!
Expand MediCare!!

[FormerDittoHead]

17. So Hillary doesn't want to offer people a nonprofit plan like Medicare? Hmmm.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

"If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums."

[ekwhite]

67. Obama's plan is very similar to Clinton's

The main difference appears to be is that Clinton's plan mandates that you join, whereas Obama's plan does not. Neither one is truly Universal Health Care, but both are a step in the right direction. Both plans have subsidies to help people buy into the plan, and have measures to make the plans more affordable. Both allow you to buy into the Federal Employees Health Benefit as an option.

Here is a link to Obama's health plan.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

138. The insurance industry is NOT going to let that happen, I promise you.

With Hillary's and Barack's plans they are in from the ground floor. To believe that a plan that allows people the option of a government plan to compete with private insurers is to believe that this incredibly powerful and well funded industry is going to willingly participate in its own demise.

IOW, it ain't gonna happen. What you will have is a nightmare of people having this government-mandated obligation to private companies on them. Even worse, any subsidies that the Democrats get to help pay for them will be cut as soon as the GOP gets back into power. So you'll have the worst of both worlds. An unfunded mandate on citizens.

[Donnachaidh]

21. you obviously haven't had to use Medicare

Speaking as one who does -- that plan sucks BIG TIME. And if this is Obama's *cure*, y'all are in for one rude awakening. SERIOUSLY rude awakening.

[Yellow Horse]

24. Medicare is a start and it needs to be STRENGTHENED & EXPANDED. nt

[defendandprotect]

46. Medicare is an excellent start --- and has to be preotected from cuts and privatiziation ---!!!

[bvar22]

27. Try and take MediCare away from a Senior.

It is YOU who will be in for a rude awakening.
There are problems that need to be solved, but they are minor compared to scrapping the whole system.
Canadians complain about their system all the time, but NONE of them would give it up for a For Profit system.

Ask them.

Ask any Senior if they will give up their MediCare for "For Profit" Insurance.

See?


Edited to Add: Remember, you are currently seeing MediCare run by an administration who WANT it tp FAIL.

[JeanGrey]

53. My god THANK YOU. Now I need a new monitor after reading

the post about how great Medicare is. :puke::puke:

[JeanGrey]

52. Excuse me but in what fantasy world is MEDICARE the best?

You are joking, right? I just had a four thousand dollar PET/cat scan that medicare would've paid three hundred 17 dollars for!!! Had I not had secondary insurance that I pay eight hundred a month for, I would be left owing over three thousand dollars!

The Best??? Medicare? Oh my god.

[bjobotts]

70. You bet.! Only elderly now have it. But if whole country had it..you wouldn't

be paying an extra charge for your CT scan. See what I mean. Take the profiteers out of it. In other industrialized countries with not for profit single payer national health care you would not have been charged anything for the exact same treatment and tests. Medicare would not be kept the same if everyone had it...right now only a small percentage of people have it...those who are retired or disabled. If the entire country had it then Medicare could afford to pay your whole bill

[JeanGrey]

121. Actually, they do not even HAVE Pet scans in Canada which

are the gold standard for cancer diagnostics. At least they don't have them everywhere, I just finished speaking on a cancer board to a woman who was considering bringing her husband to USA for a PET scan.

But we aren't going to do away with profit. That's a pipe dream. We'll all end up with Medicare just about like it is now if we're that lucky.

[pattmarty]

107. Since it was first introduced, Medicare has been chopped, stripped........

....... cut and whatever else the conservatives/republicans could do to make it an empty shell, so we could return to the good ole private insurance companies to cherry pick applicants and to generally fuck the shit out of the general population. It was a good plan when introduced, but has been cut back and fucked with by conservatives since then.

[JeanGrey]

122. That must've been a zillion years ago.

My mom had medicare for 25 years before she died and it sucked years ago.

[pattmarty]

131. Well, 25 yrs ago was about the time St Ronnie appeared........

..... to us mortals and the liberal policies became "history". My dad & mom didn't live long enough to collect Medicare or SS. Before Medicare we had NOTHING, while a good part of the world had single payer/universal healthcare by then (1964-65). It ain't really the point your mom "said it sucked 25 yrs ago", but compared to what, no insurance at all? The POINT is we should have universal/single payer healthcare for each and every fucking one of us in this country like fucking yesterday, that's the POINT.

[JeanGrey]

145. I find it disturbing when people continue to insist that

Medicare is "better than no insurance at all". If I have no insurance and need a test that cost five grand and medicare pays 400 hundred, am I better off? NO I CANNOT AFFORD IT STILL and Medicare premiums just suck me further down.

If we are going to have NHC bring it on but god please make it better than medicare.

[PADemD]

82. And make it pay 100% !

[PADemD]

83. And make it pay 100% !

[LeftCoast]

84. 100% of?

:shrug:

[PADemD]

143. 100% of the bill. Medicate only pays 80%, necessitating supplementary insurance.

[JeanGrey]

146. Er, No. In your rarest of dreams does Medicare pay 80%.

It pays 80% of USUAL AND CUSTOMARY after deductible. Cast in point: Cat/pet scan: 4800.00. Medicare paid $317.00. So much for 80%. Who do you think they will come after for the other four grand? And that is ONE TEST.

[truedelphi]

20. If medicare can suddenly come into the blue

Way abckunder Lyndon Johnson, then why can't Single Payer?>

And as far as needing time to slowly move towards it - you are in effect saying that we will continue to reward the CEO's of all these various "health insurance companies" who have been denying paid insurers their benefits, and keeping the billable amounts down low so that the doctors and hospitals are scraping by, while giving themselves salaries in exces of the combined salaries of 2200 hospital personnel!

Equation: One health insurance exec salary = the salaries of 2200 hospital employees

[defendandprotect]

47. Right . . . !!! And, we should just extend Medicare to everyone --- !!!

You don't want other programs --- especially those which are privatized or partially privatized --
to compete with Medicare!!!

[FormerDittoHead]

110. Medicare "suddenly" came "into the blue"??? Hmmmm. Some info...

First off, I thought it was "out of the blue"?

OK, I read up. MEDICARE DIDN'T "SUDDENLY" COME ABOUT - *TRUMAN* STARTED IN *1945*

Medicare didn't come out of the blue nor will universal health coverage.

http://www.larrydewitt.net/Essays/MedicareDaddy.htm

"...starting in 1945, shortly after assuming the Presidency, Truman had begun advocating national health insurance for all Americans. In November of 1945 he sent his first proposal to the Congress. In a 1948 Message to the Congress he stated: "The greatest gap in our social security structure is the lack of adequate provision for the Nation's health. . . . I have often and strongly urged that this condition demands a national health program. The heart of the program must be a national system of payment for medical care based on well-tried insurance principles. This great Nation cannot afford to allow its citizens to suffer needlessly from the lack of proper medical care. Our ultimate aim must be a comprehensive insurance system to protect all our people equally against insecurity and ill health." (3) In 1949 Truman actually submitted yet another legislative proposal to the Congress, which, like the ones before it, went nowhere. (4)"

The essay at the link above outlines the many, many years and many failed attempts on this journey.

"...Following Kennedy's death, Lyndon Johnson got a good deal of political mileage out of sentimental appeals to pass legislation as a tribute to the slain President. If he could plausibly claim that a bill was part of the dead President's legacy, it briefly had an extra boost it might not otherwise enjoy. Johnson certainly tried this tactic with Medicare. It failed repeatedly, but Johnson kept sounding the theme. In early 1965, as what would become the final successful bill..."

There was nothing "sudden" about it...

It took a lot of people a lot hard work over a lot of years overcoming a lot of opposition, and that was to pass something which would only cover (at the time) a small fraction of the general population who weren't expected to live as long as they do now...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

29. The plan is already in place. All it needs is to be funded. It's called Medicare.

[FormerDittoHead]

33. Repeat of my message #17 - that's why I chose Hillary over Obama...

Again, we're not talking about what everyone here already wants (universal non-profit), but how to get to it...

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan :

"If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums."

Note that Medicare is NOT an "opt-out" "take it or leave it" plan... EVERYONE (payroll) pays into Medicare. There's no ceiling as with social security...

The political problem is that many, many people are simply scared of government run ANYTHING (think: KATRINA), and my whole point in these threads to to point out that such a transition must be phased in. Simply, I see Hillary's plan, WITH IT'S CLEAR DECLARATION OF EXPANDING A GOVERNMENT RUN NON-PROFIT PLAN LIKE MEDICARE (see above) will get us to universal care quicker than Obama's "opt-in/out" / "no mandate" / "no garnish" plans...

[Usrename]

34. I there are many differing opinions about their plans:

Although their plans are very similar, much of the recent campaign debate has centered on their difference over individual mandates, which are included in Clinton's plan but only apply to children in Obama's. Clinton has argued that Obama's plan is not universal, as many would choose not to buy health insurance. Obama contends that people will buy health insurance if it is made affordable.

This is a significant difference, as most health care policy experts believe a voluntary plan can at best cover 95 percent of those eligible. On the other hand, this difference is less than meets the eye because Obama's plan, unlike Clinton's, includes automatic enrollment in the public plan for anyone who is employed and does not have access to quality affordable coverage. As a result, Obama's plan would likely lead to higher enrollment in the public option than Clinton's, which many health policy experts believe is the best way to effectively control health care costs.

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/272528

It's difficult to find reasonable opinions from people who are knowledgeable and who do not have a dog in this fight.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

35. I disagree totally with Hillary's mandate. The mandate

should be for the government to Provide everyone with health care and not visa versa. Why start one system and then have to start another. No matter what you think, the plan is already in place and there is No Need for Hillary's plan.

Then who is going to judge what is affordable? I am self-employed and due to my circumstances, can only afford $50 a month for health insurance. Will I be able to afford it? Gas goes up to over $4 a gallon and I'll only be able to afford $30 a month. Will we need financial statements in order to apply for subsidies. 1040's only cover earnings and not expenses, and there are people that no matter what their income is, their expenses can be extraordinary and not tax deductible.

Then there are the INSURANCE Companies, who will be left in place, left to be able to play God, like they have all along.

If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend that you watch Sicko.

Here's a link to watch it online
http://video.google.com/videosearch?num=10&so=0&q=sicko+duration%3Along&start=0

[Chisox08]

60. No the people are not afraid of the government running things

It's the Repukes who hate government who do everything in their power to sabotage it. Katrina was a direct result of the Shrub Adminstration's delibrate atempts to weaken the federal government by hiring incompotent croonies who did a heckava job after Katrina. :puke: :grr: :banghead:
If a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President were to come together and put in place a single payer non-profit universal health care system and put safegaurds on it to protect it from the Repukes it would work. I'm having problems with my insurance company, they refuse to pay for a sugery to close a gaping wound on my ankle because the docter the paid for was an incompent boob and the surgical area got infected. The insurance companies reason for this is that the non surgical method would be cheaper but a year and thousands of dollers in co-pays later it still hasn't healed and my docter is banging her head against the wall trying to deal with the insurance company. Insurance companies has let people die becasue they felt that it would be cheaper for themn to let them die then to pay to a have a life saving procedure performed.
I have one question will Hillary's or Obama plan cover pre-existing condition because no insurance company covers pre-existing conditions. I'm asking this because insurance companies drop people who are terminally ill, or have chronic illnesses.
We need to push whoever the next President be it Hillary or Obama to drop their current plans and push for a single payer non-profit universal health care. Anything else is unacceptable. Sure we won't be able to start anymore wars but we need to fix America before we start jumping into everybody else's problems. Most of Europe has these programs and they havn't been starting wars with each other since WWII.

[FormerDittoHead]

111. ...Many of them are. ...enough to tie up the Senate and Congress, apparently. also: pre-existing..

Getting this passed will be a political feat. There ARE a lot of people who do NOT want the government running their health care. We have to EDUCATE them, not pretend they're not there...

My point in this thread is that it will not happen overnight. Medicare didn't happen overnight (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2929571&mesg_id=2935901">see my msg above) nor will universal.

I have one question will Hillary's or Obama plan cover pre-existing condition because no insurance company covers pre-existing conditions.

Hey, I promise, this webpage IS *NOT* A LONG READ:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

"The insurance companies can't deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition."

edited to add the link to my prior msg

[JeanGrey]

125. Do you think that there won't be "cost savings and analysis"

under Universal Health Care? You could have UHC and STILL be making the argument you are making.
They will manage and ration care - watch and see.

[LWolf]

42. HR 676 gets us there quickest. n/t

[bjobotts]

68. We already have it..Medicaid andMedicaire...non profit...could expand to cover all

Kucinich co-sponsors such a plan already introduced in the house. It could be done in three months and with a dem pres. and dem majority in House and senate...it's a done deal. These Health Ins lobbyists are major contributors to the candidates. That's how it is done...overnight. Anything else and the amount of money the lobbyists will bribe congress with while they putter around on the issue will distract and distort. There is nothing standing in the way of single payer not for profit national health care but the candidates themselves.

[Yellow Horse]

130. Medicaid sucks. And it takes every last red penny from seniors unlucky enough to need long term care

Long term care MUST be covered.

Hillary gives it lip service and throws a few bones but no real coverage.

Obama doesn't even tackle it. He just talks about dreams and hope and such. Not much hope when you are facing the rest of your life, penniless, in a nursing home.

Baby boomers, we are doomed.

[Mika]

3. Well, people didn't vote for it. Do they really want it?

Where's Kucinich now?

:(

[T.Ruth2power]

5. C'mon

That's a complete misrepresentation of how people don't have any choice in the American political drama.

Poll after poll shows Americans in large numbers favor universal health care.

Put the issue on the ballot and have a non-corrupted media laying out all the facts and it passes in a landslide.

[Mika]

6. No its not.

Americans have access to information, if they choose to do any research. If universal non-profit health care was the #1 priority among Americans then they would mobilize to make it happen. Seriously, I believe that it will happen only if vast numbers of people mobilize an effort to make it so. After all, Cubans in Cuba did it with far fewer resources than Americans have access to, so why can't we?


-

[Luminous Animal]

8. The majority of Americans want out of Iraq

and they can't make that happen.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Health care is like getting your clutch replaced

Nobody even THINKS about it in anything more than the abstract until they're in the operating room getting a tumor removed from their brain.

The media has not been helpful and the RW lies have taken hold (socialized medicine/no choices).

Americans DO wnat it. They just have never been asked by other than seeming/media-created 'loons' like Kucinich.

[riderinthestorm]

11. I agree with you.

Americans need to be educated one by one. The ones with health insurance are the people we need to target. They don't understand the dynamics of how the lack of health insurance for everyone is really hurting ALL of us. In every discussion I get into with anyone who doesn't "believe" in universal, single payer health insurance it always revolves around taxes and how much they (mistakenly) believe it will cost. They believe their taxes are going to skyrocket because of the cost -- they just don't seem to see that their health care costs they are paying for insurance would probably go down if health care costs were paid for with taxes. And they'd get better care.

Beyond the morality of health care for everyone, the quality of health care that we get for our dollars must be discussed, over and over. And the economics of ER medicine vs. preventative medicine must be stressed to those that already have health insurance.

[wolfgangmo]

45. Here are some stats

This is a great site that breaks down several US stats and compares them internationally.


If you look at the numbers we pay at least twice what other countries do and we get ALOT less for it.



If the knucklehead you are talking to is serious about the "numbers" then paste the chump with some of these.




http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000654.htm





FYI - my wife and I run a clinic and like many of our colleagues we have switched to a "cash only" practice. We have improved our bottom line by getting rid of the many billing costs associated with insurance. Instead of 5 employees to every doc we have dropped to 1 employee to every doc. Our docs also spend a LOT more time with each patient. Insurance company policies used to make it impossible for one of our docs to spend more than a couple of minutes with a patient. Now we have an average contact time of over 1/2 an hour per patient. Think about it and consider what that could mean for everyone who is covered if we didn't have these evil insurance companies.

[JeanGrey]

54. I had a transplant four years ago at the cost of eight hundred

thousand dollars (give or take a few) and I paid exactly $1400.00. At the time the plan that paid this cost me $17.00 a week. How can I get "better" care under NHC? How do we all?

By the way the people that did this transplant are the best in the US probably the best in the world as they take very difficult cases no one else will touch and do a great job.

[hay rick]

61. there's a bigger picture

Our privatized medical system spent $800,000 on a transplant for you but doesn't provide basic care to over 40,000,000 people. You're thrilled. I hope you can understand why a lot of people are not. Are you really ready to throw all those other people under the bus so you can get an extra 10 years or whatever?

Fact is, we're talking about an avoidable dilemma. The U. S. spends twice as much per capita (including the uninsured) as other advanced nations. Here's a link provided by wolfgangmo in his post:http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000654.htm

Google per capita healthcare spending and you'll get a bunch of sites all telling the same story. Much, but not all, of the waste in our system results from the overhead costs associated with private insurance.

Single-payer is not "socialized medicine." Most of the providers remain private concerns.

Back to your operation. $800,000. Doesn't that sound a little pricey? Where did all that money go?

[JeanGrey]

113. No of course I am not willing to throw ANYONE under the bus.

All I am saying is, I don't want to give up GREAT healthcare for terrible healthcare (see England and Canada) so that all can be covered to a lesser extent.

I want us to have NHC with the same excellent care FOR ALL. And it was $800 thou for all of it. I was in and out of the hospital, 45 days all told, many complications. Five months of care in all.

When I look at Canada and England I am not thrilled. I want us to do better and somehow, I don't have much faith.

When I hear people say "let's give everyone Medicare!" I cringe, because that is better than nothing but not much better. If I didn't have a hugely expensive secondary policy I'd be screwed on Medicare.

[ekwhite]

69. We need a little more information here

Your plan sounds absolutely wonderful. Only $17.00 a week and it covers that much? How did you get it and how do you keep it?

[JeanGrey]

115. Through my employer. Family coverage at the time was something

like 23 or so a week and we got to use pre tax dollars so in real money it came to around 17, 18 bucks. That was for two people. We had no kids on the plan then. It was a well known HMO. Not PPO. So I had to even get special permission to leave the state because the transplant was done in another state. But at that point I'd been ill for three years and my medical bills were huge anyway. It was cheaper in the long run to give me the transplant, only I was stuck at a hospital I thought was good and they were horrible. Luckily I found a better program.

The claims process was a total nightmare, months of refusals because of out of network issues but I found someone with a brain in the insurance company (I also used work insurance years ago) and with his help got everything taken care of. We ended up owing around $1400 for non-covered things.....

And I can assure you they didn't get 800 grand - the HMO cut things way down, but after all was said an done it was still around half that.

[JeanGrey]

Sorry I forgot to tell you that I didn't get to keep that rate. I am

retired now, on disability and the plan costs us $800 a month for two. Plus we have Medicare. All necessary.

[bjobotts]

72. Isolated case. Whole country under Medicare gets it paid. Same surgery

in Canada under their system done immediately without waiting and by the best and you would not have paid any extra charges. Watch the movie "Sicko" and be amazed as well as informed. I was a cardiac nurse working with bypass surgeons...they don't do it for profit...that's just understood. There will always be exceptions to the rule but a single payer not for profit national system has been demonstrated to work extremely well. Watch "Sicko".

[JeanGrey]

117. Excuse me but Bypass Surgeons work for nothing? Since you

said they "don't do it for profit?"

And it is not true in Canada that you get immediate care. I've read too many cases of people NOT getting immediate care who come here.

[Yellow Horse]

129. Not for profit doesn't mean UNPAID. Geesh!

Bypass surgeons should be paid a fair salary, but they all don't need to be multimillionaires either.

And how exactly is one bypass surgeon worth many times the salary of both my parents put together, each with masters and PhD, who spent their life teaching and serving public education?

I'm tired of treating these doctors like they are some kind of god or something. They are trained professionals (yes with a lot of training but no more than many other professions require) and they should be paid accordingly not less, but not more either.

[JeanGrey]

137. Well that depends on what side of the knife you are on.

When your life hangs in the balance and you are having cancer treatment or transplant surgery, you want your surgeon competent and well paid. At least I do. (I want my airline captains the same way).

[Yellow Horse]

139. But it's OK to pay a pittance to the teacher who shapes YOUR CHILD's mind, education & future?

Sorry you had to have a transplant, and glad it was successful, but THAT IS BULL.

Having a millionaire cut on you is not going to make him or her do any better job than if they were paid a few hundred thousand less. And there are plenty of incompetent millionaire surgeons! Millionaire doctors are a product of the corporate, insurance-driven, money grubbing for-profit healthcare system and NOT due to their own intrinsic value.

And BTW, airline captains do NOT make all that much -- especially compared to surgeons.

Geesh.

[JeanGrey]

144. I'm sorry but what LEFT FIELD did the teacher remark come from?

Where did I say I wanted teachers poorly paid? Geesh is right.

[JeanGrey]

118. And what do you mean, "whole country under Medicare"

gets paid? If I'd only had Medicare I couldn't have afforded the transplant!!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

14. More of the same false construct

Americans do not have access to accurate information and worse the information they are bombarded with 24/7 is in fact industry propaganda. The most propagandized people in the world.

The way American people think about Cuba, Venezuela and other issues that you so rightly point towards cannot be seperated out from the way Americans (mis)perceive the truth of health care.

In fact despite the massive amount of propaganda you have to give credit that the majority of Americans do want universal health-care and are increasingly in support of this.

If we were able to have the mouthpieces of the mass media portray this issue even-handedly the support would be near unaminous overnight.

.......

Consider:

Providing health insurance for all Americans is the most crucial domestic issue currently facing President Bush and Congress, said 55 percent of 1,281 adults polled by The New York Times and CBS News. That the United States has 47 million uninsured people was considered a "very serious" problem by 70 percent of the respondents--a much bigger issue by far than holding down healthcare costs.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3257/is_4_61/ai_n19003025

Minority group of cowboys continue to resist

It's true, America is now a nation of pinko commie liberals. The majority of Americans want universal health care.

And we want it now!

Sixty-four percent of Americans say "the government should guarantee health insurance for all," while twenty-seven percent say "it should not," according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The "not" crowd appears to be entirely a group of people who have major dependency issues. To an extreme degree these people tend to deny that they have ever been, or will ever be, dependent on anybody, dammit! These people are never found lying around in a sick bed waiting for someone to bring them chicken noodle soup.

...

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2007/03/poll-americans-want-universal-health.html

Recent AFL-CIO opinion research of union members and retirees and polls of the general public show Americans overwhelming agree on the need for health care reform.



AFL-CIO opinion research of union members and retirees found:



71 percent of union members believe it is “critical” for elected officials to address health care (compared with 75 percent for Iraq, 67 percent for terrorism and 43 percent for economic conditions).
82 percent of union members say the health care situation is either in a “state of crisis” (32 percent) or has “major problems” (50 percent).
76 percent of union workers believe the health care situation either needs an “overhaul” (30 percent) or “major reforms” (46 percent).
82 percent of union members say the “government should do more” in the area of health care (compared with 67 percent for education and 63 percent for labor/employment issues).
Source: Financial Dynamics International Ltd. for the AFL-CIO, a nationally representative survey of 601 working members and retirees, July 25–29, 2007.


Polls of the general public show strikingly similar results:



90 percent of respondents to a CBS/New York Times poll of the general public earlier this year said the U.S. health care system needs to undergo fundamental change (54 percent) or be rebuilt completely (36 percent).
95 percent of the public believes the fact that many Americans do not have health insurance is a very serious (70 percent) or somewhat serious (25 percent) problem, according to that same poll.
84 percent of the same respondent pool said they would favor expansion of a government program that provides health insurance for some children in low- and moderate-income families in order to cover all uninsured children.
85 percent of respondents to an Associated Press poll earlier this year said health care was either extremely or very important to them as an issue while 86 percent of those polled in another CNN survey around the same time agreed.
76 percent of Americans either strongly support (53 percent) or somewhat support (23 percent) providing guaranteed health care coverage for every American, according to a recent Gallup poll.

...
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthcare/reform.cfm

Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All

By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
Published: March 1, 2007

A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html

[Two Americas]

31. leadership

The people need leadership - those from the working class with the verbal and organizational skills that are needed are chronically AWOL. All potential leaders are here blaming the people for not magically self-mobilizing, and that is the way that we as liberals do yeoman's duty propping up the status quo. We happily accept the consolation prize in politics - being "right" about everything.

So, yes, you are right.

[JeanGrey]

127. Poll after poll shows it but we don't really want it.

If we did, we would refuse to put anyone in office EXCEPT someone like Kucinich. Right? We don't, so they know we aren't really serious.

[auntAgonist]

4. People need to educate themselves

and see for themselves that this is the only way!

K&R.


aA
kesha

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Absotively posilutely correct

Nothing else will get it done.

[rubberducky]

10. I don`t think I will see this in my lifetime, but I think the children of boomers

will push for and win single-payer health. I`m 57 and I think that when enough of my generation die for lack of health care ins., our children will rise up and demand health care for all. Insurance needs to be taken out of the health care equation.

[bvar22]

15. Neither Obama or Hillary is going to push for Non-Profit Single Payer.

It is up to us, ordinary Americans who Work for a Living, to DEMAND single payer Non-Profit HealthCare!

We already have a Single Payer system IN PLACE.
It is efficient, equitable, and IT WORKS....MediCare.

Demand an end to For Profit HelathCare.
Expand MediCare.

There are ALREADY bills in Congress to do this!

*Support the Congressmen who support expanded MadiCare.

*Send a donation to Kucinich to help him beat back the corporate backed conservative Democrats trying to take his seat.

*A national InterNet based Grassroots campaign would help.

*Work locally by sending LTTE and injecting MediCare for All into local election campaigns and debates.

Don't settle for Less!
DEMAND MediCare for ALL Americans!

[Donnachaidh]

23. I'd be willing to pay $35 per month for FULL COVERAGE

Just like the Congress and the Senate get.

But you don't see THEM having to search for a doctor who will TAKE Medicare. TRY to find a doctor that will TAKE Medicare, without hounding his patients to *cover* the difference after Medicare has paid the pittance they usually pay, in any large city.

NEITHER OBAMA nor Hillary are going to give anyone single-payer UNIVERSAL health care - which is what SHOULD be demanded. If they cannot do that - extend to ALL Americans the SAME PROGRAM the Senators and Congressmen have NOW. And if they can't do that -- TAKE AWAY the Health care benefits the Feds have.

Why should WE go without, while THEY get it? :grr:

[bvar22]

28. Can you please document the $35/month fee?

FULL coverage and no "pre-existing" clause for $35/month?

If so, I'll sign up, but I haven't heard this figure from Hillary.

[ProgressIn2008]

40. Google gave me this on the sweet congressional health care deal

The OECD conclusion was not a surprise. We just do not get enough for our buck. But that is not true for everyone in the country. There is an employee/insurance deal in the U.S. that includes unlimited doctor office visits of your choosing; covers all accidents, routine exams, physical therapy, labs and X-rays; and the like; unlimited hospital visits and stays; certain chronic care and rehab; full prescription coverage; and unlimited specialty consultations. For the employee and the entire family. There are no deductibles, no co-pays, and only a $35 monthly fee taken from an annual salary of $158 thou. Thirty-five dollars!

The group awarded this insurance looks forward to a full pension and continued coverage until their deaths. Quite a few, most in fact, were millionaires before they took on their jobs that got them such a perk. Who gets this coverage? It would be nice if it were the underprivileged or the chronically ill and debilitated or our veterans.

But no. For starters, the 535 members of the U.S. Congress, and add to that the few hundred in the upper executive and judicial branches of government. They are also members of a demographic group where seven were arrested for shoplifting, nineteen for writing bad checks, and eighty-four for drunk driving. This bunch also has an overrepresentation of felony indictments, and a few ended up serving time.

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/56439/

Anyone have any other date on this?

[defendandprotect]

49. Hillary is out --- START pushing Obama on extending Medicare to everyone --- immediately!!!

This will also free corporations from the "BURDENS" of providing health care for employees ---
a supposed big reason for pulling jobs from America --- AND give greater freedom to workers
to move on when they dislike a job.

[Chisox08]

62. We had a chance with Kucinich

But we allowed the media to tell us who to vote for. We need to end Health insurance and demand Universal Healthcare. If I'm forced to buy health insurance who is going to stop them from refusing to cover treatments and then jacking up the premiiums?

[bjobotts]

75. They are standing in the way of it. Big donations from H.Ins lobbyists

[bjobotts]

77. With dem pres., house & senate only the bribes of lobbyists are stopping it

[lynnertic]

18. Hey you can jump rope to that

SINGLE payer UNI versal NON profit HEALTH care (etc)
:bounce:

[IronLionZion]

19. It's so gonna come from the states

a lot of good people will die while we wait for national single-payer and that's a risk that insured latte liberals are always willing to accept.

It has to start from the states. California's legislature already passed in both houses and their Republican governor vetoed it. Get a pro-singlepayer Dem as governor and it will come to pass in the world's 4th largest economy. MA's Deval Patrick supports single-payer but he needs the bill to come from the legislature and he will sign it for sure. What other very liberal states can do this? Vermont? Minnesota? Rhode Island? We can make it happen in the states and show that it is successful.

Canada's medicare started in one province, Saskatchewan, after Tommy Douglas faced a pretty horrible fight for many years and left office.

[cascadiance]

30. Oregon looks to be moving that direction now too...

Looks like they are about to make health care a "right" and not just a "privilege" there.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/02/oregon-house-he.html

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. There's going to be a bill presented to the Minnesota legislature, too

It can't happen fast enough, as far as I'm concerned.

[demodonkey]

22. Including all forms of LONGTERM CARE for people of any age who get disabled like my mother...

...I have been fighting for two years since her stroke to get her therapy and keep her from having to go permanently into one of these hellhole nursing homes, and give up everything my family worked for for three generations in the process to Medicaid to pay for this wonderful "care."

And all you goddam status quo huggers, "elder"lawyers, ambulance chasers, flying monkeys for the nursing home industry, flying monkeys for the "healthcare" industry, and insurance company shills lurking on DU -- ALL OF YOU shut the fuck up and come up with a real solution, because your system is totally broken beyond repair.

Our elderly, the disabled of ALL ages, and all the rest of us deserve far better. We need single-payer NON-PROFIT, all-inclusive health care for ALL.

If we can't get this done, we are nothing but a nation of barbarians.

[ekwhite]

71. I feel for you demodonkey

My mother is in the process of being put into a nursing home even as we speak. They essentially have to have no life savings so that they can spend the rest of their life in the nursing home. Medicare cuts them off after 100 days.

This could have been avoided if Medicare paid for a home healthcare nurse that would have allowed my mother to stay at home. Instead, she gets to be warehoused in a nursing home.

[liberal4truth]

78. "A nation of barbarians" is correct. We have let * kill thousands in Iraq. What else could we be?

There is nothing very promising about being an American citizen anymore, is there?

I am very sorry to hear about the long-tern care problems you mother is having and
you are correct.

This issue needs to be addressed as well, in any future national healthcare plans.

[Prophet 451]

99. I could say something unkind there

It's one of teh British national sports to read American news and ask ourselves if America has ever really been civlised.

I've worked in nursing and convelescent homes when I was in college (as a "lift-and-carry" hired hand) and here, they tend to be quite good (the occasional abuse, while disgraceful, shouldn't reflect on the system as a whole). Here, your mother would get any physical therapy, other forms of therapy if required and would have her home to go back to if and when she was ready. You can even get assisstance in converting the house to make it more usable for those with limited mobility as the result of a stroke, illness or just old age (we did this for my grandmother's home last year).

[demodonkey]

102. Say it, please! Shout it! What you describe is what we SHOULD HAVE IN THE US for longterm care!

No, we are NOT civilized here in the USA, not where it comes to healthcare. It's a disgrace to treat our American elderly and disabled of all ages the way we do.

The longterm care in most places is damn lousy (mostly because staff are underhired and underpaid to keep profits up for these nursing homes) and then on top of it Medicaid takes every last penny of income and "resources" the patient has and hands it over to these for-profit facilities -- along with a lot more of our hard-earned public tax dollars. Oh, yeah, they allow "the patient" to keep $40 per month to buy all his or her clothes (which are often lost or damaged in these facilities) and to buy anything else they may need that the nursing home doesn't provide (and said needs are plenty, because these homes don't provide anything more than the bare minimum, as once again providing more would threaten their profit margins.)

The one place where my mother was for therapy, there is a 54 year-old stroke survivor who has been trying to get help for almost three years so she can get to live in the community again after being stuck in this institution on Medicaid. She calls herself an "inmate" and she's pretty much right.

THIS IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE.

[Prophet 451]

104. It's always the money

Granted, someone has to pay for these things but when it's done by the state, on a non-profit basis, things tend to be better. The admin costs for the NHS run at about 3% of the budget and teh people who administer it are well-paid, unionised, career cival servants with benefits and pensions.

Do you have "sheltered housing" there? This is another thing we have for the elderly. The way it works is that you have a block of flats (apartments) or a small estate of houses, all occupied by the elderly or disabled. Each block or estate has a registered nurse living on site and panic buttons or grab-cords built into each home. The idea is that the resident can maintain their independance but the nurse does rounds every day or so to check on them and if there's an emergency, they just push the button or pull the cord and the nurse is with them a few minutes later. Friend of mine's mother worked as the resident nurse in one such place. Mobile library comes around every few days and on the bigger locations, there's usually some kind of communal center. While some of those are privately run, most are paid for out of taxes.

Here, it's very common for physiotherapists to visit the elderly person at home for their care. Again, paid out of taxes, no charge to the patient (besides the taxes paid on any long-term investments). Here, there's a focus on not just getting the patient well but helping them retain some dignity (as much as any ill person can).

[demodonkey]

106. "Assisted living" here...

... Medicare won't touch it so it's almost always self-pay (MedicAID is starting to pay for this in a few states, but it takes everything the person owns in the process per my other post.) If self paying for assisted living, its pretty expensive, and only available to those who are not "too" disabled because there really isn't much certified nursing care provided, mostly just assistance with some "activities of daily living" and supervision.

[Prophet 451]

108. See, that's just crazy to me

Here, most of them are run by the state. There's a few run privately (often by various charities) but to compete with the state-run ones, they have to keep their costs reasonable and unless you're very wealthy, the state covers the costs. To qualify, the place MUST have at least one certified, registered nurse permanently on-site (the bigger places often have two or three working in shifts). This just seems like basic logic to me. Almost always, such places have additional people around to provide daily living help and a few handymen to fix things and do grunt work (which is what I did).

Oh yeah, and all retired people get a pension of £87.90 (about $180) a week (that's "week", not month) unless they have a private pension. If they have a private pension which comes to less than that, the state tops it up to that figure. And that pension is the person's to do with as they see fit.

I know that we're all used to what we grew up with but I must say, the American system of paying for healthcare individually just strikes me as barking mad.

[BigDaddy44]

116. And don't forget full dental care, and vision care

n/T

[Hidden Stillness]

25. Profit Actually Makes It Impossible to Get Good Medical Care--It CAN'T Be For-Profit

This is actually the #1 issue according to the polls, not Iraq, and I think the people who really want it to happen should learn how to explain the problem clearly (NOT "FRAMING"), to answer the real ignorance that you will encounter. Just to take one example, but not to get sidetracked by it, there is a thread now, currently, on DU, that pretends to be about "Social Security" and "Medicare," yet shows absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what either of them are, what the problems are, why there may be funding problems, or not, even what progressive taxation means. If you read it, or are aware already of the attitude, you realize how scary people are, when they have no knowledge but a lot of opinions.

When things are commercial and not Government-paid or regulated, then there will be huge jumps of price, with no increase of care, and this has happened. The increase of the Medicare budget is due to price-gouging, not care provided, and seems to be suspiciously similar to the recently-published figures showing the price-gouing increase of prescription drug prices. Sen. Baucus just made this same point, heading a recent committee hearing on Medicare, etc. The huge increase of the Medicare budget is NOT because people are getting more care of any kind--they are not--but because of corporate price increases only. ALL of the increase to the budget has gone to the drug corporations, and insurers, etc. This is one of the biggest arguments for a single-payer system--the funds will actually go to patients and treatment, not to corporate profit, which actually removes it from the system and makes it totally unproductive, unconstructive corporate theft.

Further, a commercial profit-making set-up spends a lot of money on denying, not providing, care--a huge part of its budget. Do you even realize that insurance corporations spend more money each year on their buildings-full of lawyers who are only there to DENY claims, and/or fight them in court, than they do to paying claims? More of a commercial operation's budget goes to advertising, (because they are "competing" with other commercial operations attracting "markets" and "consumers"), than to providing medical care; obviously that would all be gone, and nothing wasted on this crap--all would go to care, and become as the most efficiently-run operation of them all: Medicare.

Further, as the economy sinks into complete Depression, the only reliable things will be guaranteed Government programs, not the commercial system that is killing itself and us, with its own greed and outsourcing schemes. Again, as others have mentioned, neither Clinton's nor Obama's "plans" will solve anyything; neither one of them wants to address the real problem.

[defendandprotect]

51. The hospitals also have to be returned to NON-PROFIT status . . .

they're all being turned into hell holes of stupidity --- !!!

[Bennyboy]

26. You are right.....

Neither Hillary's nor Obama's healthcare plans are to my liking. How do they think they are going to get insurers to lower their rates enough to have "low cost" healthcare without huge deductibles?

[laconicsax]

74. Reaganomics

The idea is that by encouraging providers to switch to electronic records, the overall cost of providing care will be reduced. Since it costs less to treat, they'll charge less. Insurers will then pay less, and pass the savings on you YOU!!!!

:rofl:

[Laelth]

36. Agreed.

Not a single country that has ever adopted single-payer health care has ever gotten rid of it. Remember that. There's a reason.

:dem:

-Laelth

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. You can't have it in the next four years. Sorry.

Best case scenario is a baby step or two.

I prefer two, so I'm supporting Hillary.

[eridani]

80. Odd how Republicans get everything they want, no?

They just keep demanding it, no matter how unpopular it is, like "reforming" Social Security. Give me one good reason why we should not ask for 100% of what we want. If I'll take $3000 for my used car, I'll ask for $5000. If I want a kitten, I'll ask for a pony. If I'd like 75% of my legislative agenda passed, I'll ask for 150% of it.

This ongoing gutless cowardice is beyond disgusting.

[FormerDittoHead]

133. No, they don't get everything they want...

They got the war because they lied themselves into it. They've gotten away with that without the lot of them being executed on the White House lawn, as they should have been.

...but they haven't gotten the "big ones"...

We still have inheritance taxes.

Social Security benefits haven't been touched, and privatization was tried twice and failed...

We don't have the "FairTax" national sales tax.

THOSE THREE are the "crown jewels" of the neo-con movement, and they're still trying to trick people into them...

[eridani]

134. They've gotten substantial shredding of the safetly net--

--precisely by never shutting up about their priorities. Even though they haven't gotten their ponies, they've gotten plenty of kittens. Why can't we do that on behalf of policies that are actually popular?

[FormerDittoHead]

135. Oh, they're effective, but they're persistent and don't give up. Neither should we!

I completely share your frustration at our inabilities to get the things done that the majority of Americans want (out of the war, universal care, many others).

[varelse]

38. Agreed 100% and recommended (nt)

[JMDEM]

39. I commend the civil discussion about this issue

between the Hillary and Obama supporters. Good points made on both sides, without insult or ridicule.

Too bad another forum on DU can't be this civilized.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

41. Night Kick

Act up!

Demand, don't ask, for what is rightfully yours!

[McCamy Taylor]

43. And beware of capitation. Mass. Blue is trying to sneak this in as a way

to get doctors to discriminate against the sick, since so many models for universal health care will not allow the insurance company to cherry pick or refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions. The main way insurance companies make money now is by writing policies mostly for healthy people and making sick people go to the government---Medicaid, Medicare disability, VA or CHIPS for their health coverage. If the insurance companies lose the ability to turn away sick people, they will have to start paying out more claims.

That is why they are trying to revive the dead as a door nail practice of paying doctors one lump sum---usually like $30/month/patient--to take care of all a patient's needs. More if the hospital charges are included, too.

Doctors quickly learn that they make more money under a "capitated" arrangement if they have only healthy patients who never come into the office. That way the doctor collects biggers checks with less work. Doctors learn that sick patients may end up costing them more money than the insurance pays them. So they learn to drive sick patients away. There are lots of ways to do this.

1. Refuse to write referrals to specialists, either any specialists or just the specific ones the patient wants to see (making a patient change specialists because the doctor says another one is "better" will often drive a very sick patient away)

2. Terminate the doctor patient relationship after a couple of missed appointments. Sicker people are more likely to make and therefore miss appointments. Same goes for any other termination of the doctor patient relationship for cause. Non compliance. Failure to bring copayment. Etc. This can be used selectively against sicker people.

3. Say "Your problems are just too complicated for me. You need to see Dr. X"

After a patient has gotten the run around from all the capitated doctors on an insurance plan, he or she quickly learns that health care can not be obtained on this plan, and he will switch insurance companies at the next opportunity, saving that company a bundle of money.

Doctors have all kinds of ways to deny care to the sick without violating any rules (or at least getting caught doing it) that benefit the insurance companies---and the plans know it. They could do statistical analysis and catch the doctors who do it, but they never will, because it makes them money.

Capitation in Mass. is a test run for trying it out on the rest of the country.

[Oldtimeralso]

65. You have just described my HMO

Their excellent care cost me the vision in one eye, as I was not able to get past the "gatekeepers" whose job it is to keep costs down. On top of that the Extreme Court says I cannot sue!

[Yellow Horse]

123. But I bet their CEO makes a fortune and won't be losing any eyes! nt

[Yellow Horse]

120. So cut out the loopholes. Teachers don't get to pick and choose who they teach.

Teachers have to take and teach all the problem kids right along side the little angels and super students.

Doctors, hospitals, etc. should have to take everybody or they get tossed from ALL the programs (govt. subsidized insurance, single payer, Medicare, Medicaid, what have you.) I can't imagine there would be THAT many patients left for them to refuse at that point but if they are, and creating a shortage of care, then a tax on them if they want to continue in PRIVATE practice -- so that we can provide publicly paid doctors etc, like they have in the UK, to take up the slack.

Comprehensive public healthcare is a lot like comprehensive public education -- should be a basic RIGHT, and if you want more or different than what the public program provides you can pay for it but that does not let you out of paying your share of the public program.

[defendandprotect]

44. And as far as I know NO Democratic candidate now supports it ---

Will it be in the 2008 Democratic Platform?

Who's for it --- EXCEPT THE PUBLIC . . . ??? !!!!

[classykaren]

56. Edwards did n/t

[slipslidingaway]

66. Edwards did not have single-payer, not for profit health care

as his plan. He said it might lead to it, then again it might not.

:shrug:

Kucinich was the only candidate advocating for a single-payer system.

:(

[defendandprotect]

109. Edwards is not "now" . . . Edwards is out ---

General Comment:
“If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form.” If moderates don’t feel moved to repudiate the past 7 years of idiocy, and by huge margins, it’s time to declare the patient dead.
But I am a progressive and President Obama will need to know that there remain a lot of issues over here to the left of things that still need to be addressed. And the puppeteer who holds a donkey puppet in one hand and an elephant puppet in the other needs to know that we see him up there."

[defendandprotect]

48. DLC supports some privatization of Medicare . .. right --- ????

It's my understanding that it does ---



“If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form.” If moderates don’t feel moved to repudiate the past 7 years of idiocy, and by huge margins, it’s time to declare the patient dead.
But I am a progressive and President Obama will need to know that there remain a lot of issues over here to the left of things that still need to be addressed. And the puppeteer who holds a donkey puppet in one hand and an elephant puppet in the other needs to know that we see him up there."

[blayne]

50. Oh if only Dennis were still with us.

And if only someone would pick up where he left of.

[bjobotts]

73. Dennis co-sponsored not for profit single payer national health care in the House already

The only thing standing in the way of this are the candidates themselves.

[blayne]

112. You are right about that.

He is still with us and trying to do the right thing for the American people.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

55. Horse Crap...

Yes you need to make sure everyone is covered but to deny people the right to have private insurance is very unamerican..

[Joshua N]

58. Okay, you should be able to opt out if you want to. But please,the term "un-american" is unhelpful.

It's dangerously tipping on propaganda IMO. Do Italians say this or that is "un-italian"? If they do, it makes no more sense for them as it does for us.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

63. But taking away the choice of the private sector is unamerican

The right to private property is fundamental...

BTW the term un-italian does get used.. But even if they did not Un-American would still make more sense..

We were not founded on a nationality, ethnicity, or language we were founded on a set of principles..

[Bluenorthwest]

101. Well in England

Most of my friends are thankful for NHS, but the rich ones buy private if they want to, some do. They are still part of NHS by rights. They are part of the other by purchase. No big deal. Money will still talk, don't worry!

[demodonkey]

105. What about a disabled person's right to private property??

We as a nation have this attitude that it is somehow the disabled and elderly's OWN FAULT they they need long term care and don't have spare millions saved to pay for it, so due to their own negligence they should lose everything.

If disabled, you thus can't keep ANYTHING over about $2000 unless you are a millionaire and can self pay for ALL the care you need.

Somewhere in the middle? MedicAID takes everything -- all your income and resources less about $40 per month that you are "allowed" to keep in order to buy all your clothes and other personal needs and wants. And yes the disabled have wants like anybody else, but too bad.

AFTER ALL IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT YOU NEED CARE AND CAN'T PAY CASH FOR IT, SLACKER! Right.

BTW, this is a horrible situation that strikes a lot of families with family farms or family businesses. The property may be in parents' names and adult children who have worked for decades expecting (and needing, for their own security) to inherit the farm or business someday face losing everything THEY have worked for so that their parent can get some lousy care. A whole industry of helpful for-profit "elderlawyers" has sprung up to "protect" families from situations like this -- assuming you have a spare $5000 to $15,000 or MORE lying around in cash to pay for this wonderful help which may or may not actually work.

But assuming all works out and the parent "qualifies" for this wonderful Medicaid, they then often get warehoused in a smelly for-profit nursing home which is usually short-staffed and the staff that they do have -- especially the hands-on caregiving staff -- are woefully underpaid and overworked. Staff costs money, and that eats into the profit margin for the CEO and investors after all.

It's bad enough for someone (person and family who loves them) to be stuck in one of these for-profit hellholes. As a nation we could at least pay for the care as part of Medicare -- and let these people keep what little income and property they have and use it as they wish.

Oh, but silly me, I forgot... IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT YOU NEED CARE AND CAN'T PAY CASH FOR IT, SLACKER!

:puke:

BULL SHIT. This. is. so. wrong.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

147. NIce straw man

We are not talking about expanding medicade to those who want it (inclduing the disabled) Ive got no issue with that. We are talking about forcing people into a government program and, as many on du advocate, eliminating the private sector..

[bvar22]

119. "Opting Out" ia not an option....

The same as "Opting Out" of Social Security" is not an option.

You are free to buy any additional coverage you desire, but opting out of a basic governmantal responsibility is not an option. Universal MediCare will cover ALL, and be funded by ALL.

[Joshua N]

140. Good Point. You're Right. n/t.

[Prophet 451]

93. "un-American"?

I've always wondered about that phrase because it seems to be used as a way of saying "I disagree with this".

I'm British. We actually have universal healthcare and yet, people can still go and buy private healthcare if they want it. It's just that, with an NHS that covers everyone, most people don't want it (and of the ones who do, it's often part of their benefits package).

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

98. (un-american) You mis read it then

There are calls on this board for outlawing private insurance for a nation founded on rights including that of property the term un-american is most apt.

I have no problem with the entitlement to insurance but to force people to use a government plan in their personal lives is bunk.

[Joshua N]

141. You mean like Social Security? Also, again, "unamerican" can be twisted to mean harmful things

It's better to denounce such language and argue on the issues.

[bvar22]

114. Nobody is trying to take away your "right" to "For Profit" Insurance.

The For Profit Carriers will be free to compete with Universal MediCare, and free to offer additional coverage. You will still be free to buy all the For Profit Insurance you want.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

148. If you force everyone to govt plan A you will, in effect,

destroy the private sector medical field. It like handing everyone in the US a car (say a mid level saturn) and saying it wont crush the auto industry..

Hell many on DU are all for just skipping the middle man and making private insurance illegal..

[Joshua N]

57. AGREED! However, it will not start from the national level, you will not convince a majority of

Americans to accept this in a general election. It will have to happen at the state level first and when people see it works other states (hopefully) will get on board.

That is why I admired Kucinich and would have voted for him in the GE but knew he would never make it that far. None of the other candidates as far as I know platformed on single payer non-profit healthcare.

Thank you for shedding light on this clear and important point of the true universal healthcare. Although I prefer Obama's plan to Clinton's (I do not like the mandate on for profit healthcare corps) they are both inherently flawed - though I think they both are doing the best they can under the circumstances. Change will have to happen at the state level first IMO.

[TreasonousBastard]

59. That's so stupid it's not even funny...

who in the health care business is supposed to be non-profit? Doctors and nurses taking pay cuts? The companies making sutures making no profit?

We have a lot of non-profit hospitals out there now, just about all of the good ones, and they seem to charge at least as much as the for-profit ones.

Oh, the insurance companies, of course! The ones that pay better than Medicaid or Medicare. The ones that cover all those things Medicare doesn't cover.

We all know that looking at the overall numbers we don't get as much as we should for the amount of money we spend on healthcare in the US, but we are talking about a $2 trillion or so share of the GDP for healthcare, and that's not about to be radically changed overnight.

Besides, who on Earth actually has a true single payer system?

Public share of health expenditure, OECD countries, 2005. By percentage of total health expenditures.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/33/38976604.pdf - Source for chart below.

[Thothmes]

88. You have hit upon one of the

dirty little facts of the medical world. One which a lot of DU'ers do not want to believe or openly discuss. There has to be a certain amount of profit associated with all medical operations or they go out of the business. The only way that you can eliminate profit from medicine is to Nationalize all of the doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, labs. JMO

[hay rick]

64. entrenched interests

The problem with single-payer is getting there. The insurance companies, hospital corporations, pharmaceutical companies, and the AMA have deep pockets. Last time I looked, judging by the list of sponsors, the evening news appeared to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the drug companies. And this is before they feel their profits being threatened.

Before we can get to single-payer the American people are going to have to do a whole lot of homework. The commercial media will be a hindrance, not a help.

[ekwhite]

76. Something to consider...

Both Clinton's and Obama's plans offer Medicare and Federal Employee Health Benefits plan as alternatives to commercial insurance. If FEHB is truly a great plan, it might become 'universal health care' by default, if health insurance companies fail to compete on price and benefits. I could especially see a lot of employers that currently offer commercial plans offering FEHB as part of a 'cafeteria' plan if they can limit their financial responsibility.

[bvar22]

128. Not exactly...

Hillary has proposed an option that will be "something like MediCare" but has specificly stated that it will NOT be MediCare. It will be a separate system that may actually "compete" with MediCare.
She has been very vague about funding for the "MediCare Like" system, and very vague about the cost of entering this system.

I cannot TRUST this vague promise. I will need to see the details before THIS will get my vote.

From everything I have read, Hillary's Mandatory Health Insurance Program will be a step in the WRONG direction. It will make it HARDER to move to a true Single Payer system.

[jannyk]

79. In total agreement!!! Rec'd. eom

[Enthusiast]

81. I'm sick..........

No kidding. I have several major health issues. I, too, wish we could get single payer, not for profit, health care. Anyone with a lick of sense wants the same.

Trouble is, those that want to maintain the status quo are in charge of the media. Citizens will not be educated as to the possibilities. Once again, their greatest weapon is the media. Media consolidation has destroyed my country.

[Pooka Fey]

85. I can't believe how fucking stupid and gullible we Americans are.

That there is even DEBATE on this issue just kills me. There are posters here on this thread saying "Oh my private insurance works for me" without even a hint of concern that they are 50 million of their neighbors who don't have the same benefits.

Even after "Sicko" - which could educate everybody who ever had any questions about this issue! And the subject of "Sicko" was about how Americans WITH INSURANCE are denied treatment to increase profits for their insurers. I continue to be astonished.

And as for the debate on "how would we set it up? how would it work?" - how 'bout we ask France or Canada or England to help us? They have their systems in place, up and running. We don't have to start from scratch. Once again, we have swallowed the corporate propaganda hook, line and sinker.

On edit - of course, some Americans "get it". And from what I've seen, most medical professionals "get it".

[Prophet 451]

92. Sometimes, we wonder that ourselves

I'm British (English as it happens) and, as I outlined downthread, our system works quite well. There's a few problems, such as dentistry, that you could take account of and correct for in your version and it takes a lot of money to set the system up (although that cost can be defrayed over a very long time period) but once up and running, it's quite cheap. The annual operating budget of the NHS is around £60 billion paid for out of taxes and the ONLY cost out of my pocket is the £7 contribution to the drug cost I pay with each prescription (and the young, old and sick are exempt from that).

[Yellow Horse]

126. 60 billion pounds to cover 60 million, right?

A little over $2000 per person?

Geesh.

Americans are fools.

[Prophet 451]

132. Yep

Works out at about £1000 per person, per year which is roughly $2K and that covers everything except elective cosmetic surgery (reparative cosmetic surgery IS covered though) and all your drug costs.

[Vinca]

86. Just because Obama and Clinton are promoting universal

health INSURANCE, we cannot give up. Decent health care for all is impossible unless the insurance companies, which caused the problem in the first place, are taken out of the mix.

[rateyes]

87. Damned straight!

[LiberalFighter]

89. 34% +or- 2% is administrative and profit costs

That is over 1/3 compared to 2-4% administrative costs to run Social Security or Medicare. And they don't get to limit who receives insurance.

[Prophet 451]

91. The NHS runs about 3% admin costs

and the career civil servants who administer the system are quite well-paid, get pensions and benefits.

Thought that might help the comparison.

[LiberalFighter]

94. What is the NHS?

[nxylas]

95. National Health Service

The UK system.

[Prophet 451]

96. National Health Service (or System)

Our British version.

EDIT: I see someone answered before me.

[Prophet 451]

90. As motivation...

...I'm a Brit, we have the NHS here. Here's how it works for us and how it should work for you:

I get sick, I call my doctor and get an appointment (not always but usually on the same day). If necessary, s/he writes me a prescription. I take the prescription to a pharmacy and pay £7 (about $14) as a contribution toward the cost of the drugs, the rest being covered by taxes and the young, old and poor are exempt even from that contribution. I go home, I take the drugs, I (hopefully) get better.

Contrary to the horror stories of the right and occasionally, our own media, this actually works quite well. The NHS mainly uses generic drugs to keep costs down and, if a hospital stay is required, your hospital will probably aim more toward functional than luxurious (again, to keep costs down). It's not perfect, it's difficult to think of anything that could be and due to some loopholes, NHS dentistry is a real mess (this is why Brits tend to have bad teeth: piss-poor dental care) but it covers all of us, cradle-to-grave, for anything that could possibly be needed.

Having lived with this all my life, I don't understand the distinction between "single-payer" and other forms of cover but I do know the NHS isn't run at a profit. It's not free, of course. It costs me roughly a thousand pounds a year from my share of the tax burden. I think that's fairly reasonable but I've noticed that Americans tend toward the taxophobic and I've had numerous conversations with Americans, even liberal well-read Americans who regard that as outrageously high and remain opposed to the entire concept of paying slightly more for universal cover. I'm happy with it. Discounting the usual grumbling, so are most Brits. The system is administered by well-paid career civil servants who do their job efficiently and with minimal fuss (and are properly unionised if there's a problem).

To address one other query I've heard. I keep getting asked about the cost of hyperchondriacs who go to their doctor for every little thing. I can only assume that doctors make a profit off prescribing drugs in the US because here, they wouldn't give you a prescription, they'd tell you that you're a hyperchondriac and to stop wasting their time. Cost to the taxpayer: Perhaps ten minutes of the doctor's time.

I tell you this not to annoy you or to brag (having lived with it all our lives, we don't think it's anything special) but to illustrate that universal cover is not only possible but, once it's up and running, quite simple. Ours isn't the best, that's the French (who pay roughly 7.5% of their tax burden to our 5%) but our version works quite well. The USA remains the only industrialised nation in the world without universal healthcare. The way it's done varies but every other industrialised nation in the world has it in some form.

The rest of us wonder sometimes why the US which is more concerned with it's health than most other nations, doesn't have universal cover yet. Generally, we assume it comes down to three reasons:
1. The ungodly amount of money the insurance industry can throw around.
2. Having built a nation on the myth of the rugged individual, something in the American spirit rebels at the notion of shared risk.
3. Having spent fifty years being indoctrinated with anti-communist rhetoric (which often fails to make a distinction between communism and socialism), Americans see creeping "reds" in any program for the general welfare.
We also wonder why, given how concerned the US is with it's health, why there hasn't been full-scale rioting over the lack of what the rest of us tend to regard as a basic right.

I don't know. The fact remains though, that Britain is a nation of around 60 million people and we can make universal healthcare work. It might get a little more complex inthe states with your strange divide between state and federal law but it can be enacted in the US easily. I don't know enough about Medicare to know if extending that to everyone would be feasable but that's one idea. It strikes me that continuing to funnel money to the insurance companies is, if anything, a way of making things worse because it gives said companies even more fuel and reason to try and blockade such reforms. The only solution which seems to work is to remove the insurance companies, not entirely (they still exist here in a small way) but to remove them from their position of power; stop keeping track of who uses what for any reason other than allocating resources; stop worrying about whether you get more or less use than your neighbour of a service which, in an ideal world, no-one would need at all. It won't be easy, they've had years and billions of dollars to cement their position and, while maintaining universal cover is relatively cheap, it's expensive to set up initially but it can be done and should be done.

If anything, I think Americans are being far too polite about this. As I say, the rest of us regard medical care as a basic right so why Americans tolerate their politicians giving only lip service to the concept baffles us. Have a few million-man marches on Washington and let's see if the politicians take the problem seriously. Then again, having seen how nakedly corrupt your political service has become (campaign contributions = outright bribery), I wouldn't count on it.

[slipslidingaway]

136. Thank you...

my sister is married to a Brit and has lived in England for over 20 years. After receiving a bill for $4000. in January for a 6 hour ER visit in Florida she appreciates the NHS a bit more. The hospital then discounted the bill 20% because they did not have insurance and then gave them another 20% discount for paying the same day. They do have the luxury of private insurance if needed, but mostly use their local doctor under the NHS.

Single-payer just means that the government would pay the bills for services rendered and covered under the national plan. Currently doctors and hospitals have to deal with billing and collecting from a variety of different health care plans.

The proposed legislation (Conyers/Kucinich bill or HR 676) would not allow private insurance companies to sell insurance for services that were covered under the national insurance plan. It is my understanding that it would be similar to the Canadian plan. Right now the US government covers people who have the highest health care costs (mainly the elderly) while the private insurance companies profit by covering people who, as a general rule, have lower cost health care needs.

A national plan for everyone would spread the risk, increase negotiating power for prices and decrease administrative costs associated with having various plans.

[BrklynLiberal]

97. Wow! What a simple and obvious concept. Wonder why it is so difficult for it to be understood?????

[Lasher]

100. I Double Dog agree! n/t

[pattmarty]

103. I believe any "Liberal" who doesn't support this now, should not.......

...... consider himself/herself a Liberal. BOTH Clinton and Obama have shitty plans.

[Joshua N]

142. Self Deleted

Self Deleted

[sarcasmo]

124. Preach on Orwellian Ghost preach on.