Can we get HR 676 passed?

[redqueen]

It's got 78 co-sponsors, seems to have a broad base of support among Physicians... what's the big hold up here?

What are the down sides?

I want to push for this HARD starting ... well starting years ago actually. But now that Congress will be mostly Democratic... do we actually have a chance? It seems like the simplest, best solution to me.

If you're not already familiar with this bill, please do some reading. Here are a few sites with info:

http://s209363542.onlinehome.us/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00676:

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/the_national_health_insurance_bill_hr_676.php

Sample letters to send to your representatives are linked at that last site.


What do you think?

[Juche]

1. I doubt it

Even though it would save businesses billions and make them more cost competitive, it would still require a trillion dollar tax hike (despite private spending going down 1.3 trillion) and that'll not get passed anytime soon. Obama has even run ads complaining about 'higher taxes and government run healthcare'.

Also, its not a bad idea but medicare isn't perfect either. It also has been known to deny claims just like priavte insurance. So we'd still have the same problems we do now.

[redqueen]

2. It would require a trillion dollar tax hike?

Did you check the website by Physicians for a National Health Program?

This is on that site:

June, 1998, Economic Policy Institute

“In the model presented in this paper, it is assumed that in the first year after implementing a universal, single-payer plan, total national health expenditures are unchanged from baseline. If expenditures were higher than baseline in the first few years, then additional revenues above those described here would be needed. However, these higher costs would be more than offset by savings which would accrue within the first decade of the program.”

Universal coverage could be financed with a 7 percent payroll tax, a 2 percent income tax, and current federal payments for Medicare, Medicaid, and other state and federal government insurance programs. A 2 percent income tax would offset all other out-of-pocket health spending for individuals. “For the typical, middle income household, taxes would rise by $731 annually. For fully 60% of households, the increase would average about $1,600…costs would be redistributed from the sick to the healthy, from the low and middle-income house-holds to those with higher incomes, and from businesses currently providing health benefits to those that do not.

“Even more important, greater efficiency and improved cost containment would become possible, leading to sizable savings in the future. The impediment to fundamental reform in health care financing is not economic, but political. Political will, not economic expertise, is what will bring about this important change.”

“Universal Coverage: How Do We Pay For It?” — Edie Rasell, M.D. PhD).

There are other estimates as well.

[bobbolink]

7. You're wrong about the taxes.

Do some more reading.

It's repeating stuff like this that keeps it from happening.

[Juche]

17. Yeah, ignorance sucks

Especially arrogant ignorance



http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.shtml

New Sources of Revenue Under H.R. 676 - $1,259 billion

Payroll Tax (3.3% additional on employer/employee) - $538 billion

Stock Transfer Tax (0.25% on seller and buyer) - $150 billion

Reduce Corporate Welfare - $100 billion

Reverse 2001 and 2002 Tax Cuts - $251 billion

Tax Surcharge: 5% on Richest 5% of Taxpayers; 10% on Richest 1% - $200 billion

Total New Revenue - $1,259 billion



------------------

It is funded by $888 billion in new taxes, reversing $251 billion in tax cuts and cutting $100 billion in spending in other areas. Not that I'm opposed to it (a trillion in higher taxes that is offset by 1.4 trillion less in private spending is a good deal), but its going to be hard to sell that w/o a massive backlash.

[redqueen]

20. How is nearly half a trillion in savings a tough sell?

I think it's only the propaganda that makes it a tough sell. It's up to us to push back against private insurers' & big pharma's propaganda.

[Juche]

21. I hope I'm wrong

Supposedly most people would welcome UHC even if it costs more in taxes. But if you look at how people fell for all that 'drill here, drill now, save money, end foreign dependence' crap even though

1. Drilling won't create oil for 10-20 years
2. Even when it does, prices won't go down more than 1-2 cents a gallon
3. We don't have enough oil at home to be energy independent

It makes me question how easily people are misled by bullshit. This last election should've taught us that. I'm for HR 676, but let the public think they are seeing a trillion tax hike (oblivious to the cut in private spending) and watch the pushback.

[redqueen]

22. Yes... corporate propaganda is powerful,

especially when it's catapulted by half of the government. But we have over half now. So... if we can just get the Dem legislators on our side, and have them start spreading *our* talking points (e.g. the $400,000,000 savings)... well, there is hope!

[truedelphi]

43. If we owned the media - then we could have this a done deal

And there is another way to fund Universal SIngle Payer Health Care - let's start charging for the People's Airwaves that we have basically handed over to Mainstream RW jerks for half pennies on the dollar.

If every newscaster and Talking Head out there who is denigrating all the needed progressive reforms, well at least make them pay us some Big Bucks to be doing that!

[eridani]

37. Why would anybody give a flying fuck whether their payments are called a tax or a premium?

We are talking about the same amount of money in either case, and we get a hell of a lot more out of the same money by making it a tax.

[John Q. Citizen]

40. If perfection is your minimum standard then good luck. We currently spend

enough to cover everyone. We are being ripped off, currently. If you are willing to let that continue another

You are correct that change is politically difficult. Yet I think less difficult now than at other times.

And no, Canada which spends 40% less per capita on health care doesn't have the same problems. In fact, they have far fewer problems. No medical bankruptcies for instance, our #1 cause.

I will concede you that the Canadian system isn't heaven on earth, if you will concede that it works pretty well and provides universal access to care (unlike our system) and for a lot less money (unlike our system) and people can always choose their care provider. They also have better medical outcomes.

Deal?

[drm604]

3. I'd like to see it

but apparently Obama doesn't support single-payer. Maybe his mind can be changed.

[redqueen]

9. Obama's not in congress...

will he go so far as to not sign legislation if we can get Dems to put it on his desk?

The real roadblock it seems to me are the so-called 'centrists' in congress.

[TahitiNut]

4. It can't hurt to do our damnedest to try. The more energy and advocacy we put into it ....

... the better any resulting health care system will be. I can't see how there's still any significant argument about Single-Payer ... given the many years of examples we have from EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION.

France and Italy provide the BEST health care to their citizens at the LEAST cost. Fucking 'd'oh!'

[bobbolink]

8. It's going to take citizens forming an organization to strategerize.

There's all that propaganda to overcome.

People would rather complain, than to start to work on forming a plan.

[demodonkey]

12. There are lots of organizations to work for HR 676, already! Please join one!

http://www.healthcare-now.org/
http://www.healthcare-now.org/action/local-contact-list/


Some state organizations:
http://www.healthcare4allpa.org/home.php
http://www.healthcare4allpa.org/folkslikeus.htm
http://www.healthcareforallcolorado.org/?p=7

There are tons more; just Google, join, and support 'em PLEASE!

[bobbolink]

16. Not me. No time.

I've learned the hard (and painful!) way that there is NO support or concern about homelessness.

So, that's the only thing I'm willing to put my time and energy into.

When some of the other ones decide to help get low-income housing, then I will be freed up for other issues.

Until then... not a chance.

Knowing DUers, I'm sure you'll argue with me.

I really don't give a rip.

[Sirveri]

35. UHC supports the homeless.

Lack of adequate healthcare for the homeless is a serious and major problem. Along with lack of pysch services for a good majority of the homeless in this country that truly need it.

[Yellow Horse]

44. The homeless need single-payer healthcare probably more than any other single group.

If you really want to help them, you will at least give SOME support to the organizations working for it.

[bobbolink]

46. Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying.

There is NO "progressive" move for low-income housing.

There is LOTS of support for health care, from muddleclass people.

It's simple.... you want my help on healthcare, then you offer to help with homelessness.

You don't just demand more of me with no offer from your own self.

[redqueen]

23. I'd like to strike while the iron is hot...

I keep hearing about how this majority in both houses should be short-lived. We may not have much time.

[demodonkey]

5. WE HAVE TO. The cost of our insurance-driven system is dragging the country down.

$1000 of the cost of every US-made new car goes to pay health insurance for the Americans who made it. Small wonder our jobs are going overseas.

Bankruptcies, suicides, courts being tied up with lawsuits over unpaid medical bills. THIS HAS TO STOP.

If we want to compete in the 21st century, we can't continue to be the only industrialized nation that does not care enough about our fellow citizens to provide everyone healthcare.

John Conyers is a hero for many reasons; one of the greatest is his bill HR 676.

THIS BILL MUST PASS and THE SYSTEM MUST CHANGE. Please everyone, get your head around this, now. WE HAVE TO CHANGE. No more greed-driven health "insurance" companies profiteering off people's suffering. No more copays, deductibles, and mounds of paperwork. I'd gladly pay higher taxes for that. We need HealthCARE, not health "insurance".

HR 676 -- Healthcare for all Americans. Everybody in, nobody out.

[redqueen]

11. Well we should probably start getting ready to push HARD

once the new congress is sworn in. :)

Lay the groundwork now so we can hit the ground running in a couple months... what do you think?

[bobbolink]

6. What's the "big hold up" you ask? We don't DEMAND IT.

Until we have the WILL and DETERMINATION to stand up to the corporations and pharmco, we will continue as we are.

I've worked on this issue... what I see is people who want to tell their sad stories, but they don't want to actually DO anything about it.

A lot of us have read the stuff.. what we need is real leadership to strategerize overcoming the propaganda from the corporations.

Are you up for that?

[redqueen]

10. Hell yes I'm up for that!

This has been my 'pet' cause since before Kucinich ran in '04. :)

[bobbolink]

13. GOOD! That's a great answer, and the one I was hoping you'd respond with.

So, now, gird yourself for battle, because it's an uphill fight.

You notice that PNHP hasn't really come up with a strategery? Hmmm?

We need to find ways to overcome all that "Socialist" propaganda, first!

When that way is settled on, it's money for full-page ads, 1/2 hour commercials ala Obama, etc.

It's up to US!

There's a post listing organizations already formed--if any of them are actively working on a real strategery, join up and get it moving.

What I've seen is that there is no real strategery.. no real plan.

It would be GREAT if we could get Conyers to say what the "big hold up" is... give us some clues of where to start. He isn't likely to do that, so .... it's thinking cap time.

But what I know is that just complaining, just holding "hearings" that nobody attends or listens to... isn't productive. Been there, done that.

Time for some new ideas!

[Yellow Horse]

14. To the Greatest Page with you -- K&R #5 for CHANGE. Everybody in, Nobody out! nt

[redqueen]

15. Thanks!

:hi:

[wildflower]

18. I hope so.

Personally, I think if anyone has a chance, it's Obama. I was just looking at an article from the New Yorker on him, and the way he has been able to get Republican support stood out for me. For example:

“The number of conservatives who’ve called me—roommates of mine, relatives who are Republicans—who’ve said, ‘He’s the one Democrat I could support, not because he agrees with me, because he doesn’t, but because I at least think he’ll take my point of view into account,’ ” Michael Froman, a law-school friend who worked in the Clinton Administration and is now involved in Obama’s campaign, says. “That’s a big thing, mainstream Americans feeling like Northeast liberals look down on them.”

(From http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar?currentPage=6 , page 6 of an 11-page article.)

[redqueen]

19. I wish voters wouldn't make these issues about their feelings.

It should be about policy.

Oh well...

[Kitty Herder]

24. It is possible if we, the people, insist on it.

We have to raise a fuss. Eventually, the politicians will get it.

[redqueen]

26. Yes, we may not have majorities in both houses for long...

so raising a huge fuss ASAP is paramount IMO. :)

[dkofos]

25. As soon as we get rid of pelosi and reid, we might have a chance.

[bobbolink]

27. And then there'll be another hurdle.

With how many needless deaths in the meantime?

[dkofos]

28. Always with the negative vibes!!

[bobbolink]

32. YEs, you want to keep waiting until the "time is right". That's VERY negative.

How many people die while we wait?

There will always be a "good reason" to wait.... just ask Pelosi and Reid.

[dkofos]

41. Your words not mine. I just don't see anything happening until we get real leaders.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. What evidence is there of "a broad base of support among Physicians?"

:shrug:

[Trillo]

30. This is one of the more important issues.

Probably why the wedge issues of marriage and sex and money and family structure are being enflamed so much. Such as: "Don't let those people get organized, keep them bickering among themselves."

[redqueen]

31. Indeed.

Plus those are just more emotionally-charged issues, so it's easier to get people interested in them.

[librechik]

33. NO WAY! That would be too easy...

we need to write an expensive and complicated new law with lots of goodies for the health and pharm lobbies.

[redqueen]

34. Hah... which if we let them,

is exactly what they'll do!

[dreamnightwind]

36. Rec'd

This is hugely important, worth a lot of our energy to push it.

[McCamy Taylor]

38. K and R and here are some talking points about why it wont cost money to do it

I noticed that the very first objection was We cant do it cause we are in a recession and it will cost to much

Get ready to hear that one repeated over and over again by the health insurance industry, the Medical Industrial Complex, Republicans like William Kristol who are scared to death that Dems will deliver health insurance and even Dems who want to cater to the health insurers and the drug companies and a bunch of other special interests who like our broken health care system that wastes 6-7% of the GNP a year of overhead and excess profits while delivering nothing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4435594&mesg_id=4435594

The above is a journal I just wrote about how we already spend as much as France, England and the rest per capita in public money on health care. That is not counting the extra dollar per dollar that we throw in of private money (we spend twice as much per person as any other civilized country on health care). But the important point is tax payers already commit as much money as they would if we had universal health care. We simply are not spending it to fund universal health care. We are wasting it on crap---especially a lot of overpriced, ineffective, sometimes dangerous treatments that make the Medical Industrial Complex filthy rich, all administered in the last few days of some poor soul who never got preventive health care's miserable life.

Our system is broken. Our health indicators----infant mortality, life expectancy etc.---are shot. We spend twice as much as we should per person for piss poor quality results.

We could cut our expenditures by half if we offered cradle to grave universal care that emphasized disease prevention and de-emphasized the machine that goes ping from Monty Python's the Meaning of Life.

And we not have to spend an extra cent of tax dollars to do it and 6-7% of the GNP would be freed up for something else and we would be healthier.

So, this bill is a winner.

[redqueen]

39. Thanks for the talking points!

PNHP has a good one too, on their FAQ page:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#buy_healthcare


I think another obstacle will be the lack of choice.

[area51]

42. k&r ...

... for this life and death issue.

Every day, 273 people die due to lack of healthcare in the U.S.

We need single-payer NOW.

[redqueen]

45. Thank you...

:)