First-of-Its Kind Study: Medicare for All (Single-Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/january/first-of-its-kind-study-medicare-for-all-single-payer-reform-would-be-major-stimulus-for-economy-with-2-6-million-new-jobs-317-billion-in-business-revenue-100-billion-in-wages.html


First-of-Its Kind Study: Medicare for All (Single-Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages

Establishing a national single-payer style healthcare reform system would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs, and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, with another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy, according to the findings of a groundbreaking study released today. It may be viewed at www.CalNurses.org.

The number of jobs created by a single-payer system, expanding and upgrading Medicare to cover everyone, parallels almost exactly the total job loss in 2008.


MORE at the link above --

[NMDemDist2]

1. 6 recs, on the Greatest no posts

so I'll kick it for ya :kick:

[aquart]

2. Innovative start ups would be able to hire real talent.

Small companies with new ideas would be competitive with lumbering old ones.

It would revitalize American business.

And many people unable to work AND have healthcare would be able to return to the job market.

[CrazyLate]

5. Yep

people with personal or family medical conditions would be able to migrate jobs without having to worry about being cut off from insurance. Right now many of those people are forced to endure in dead in, lower productivity jobs because of family circumstances.

[Winterblues]

70. Not to even mention how American business could once again become competitive with

Businesses from around the world where they do have National Health Care and Zero Health Insurance expense against business. Health Care combined with Workman's Comp is a tremendous burden on American business and makes it extremely hard to be competitive.

[Kalyke]

76. I have never understood why the Chamber of Commerce

hasn't backed this.

I realize they're mostly Republicans, but they're also mostly into gleaning as much money as they can from the public sector.

[slipslidingaway]

3. K&R n/t

[antigop]

4. K&R n/t

[drm604]

6. K&R. I just received this in my email.

I came here to post it but you beat me to it. Thanks!

[Donnachaidh]

7. I almost fell out of my chair after I read it.

HAD to come and post it.

[drm604]

9. I wish that I could believe that it will actually have some impact.

Obama wants to include the insurance companies. :(

[Donnachaidh]

12. yeah -- I know

someone should fax this to him. In fact, let's ALL fax this to him on the 20th. Anyone have the fax for the WH?

[sansatman]

48. No need to fax!

Just go here and persist: change.gov

also visit...


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


http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:hv2o4xIUZ-oJ:www.fiar.us/HR676.pdf+hr+676+pnhp&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

[Donnachaidh]

62. it should be coming out of EVERY outlet available to us

Channeling ALL the noise thru change.gov only allows those receiving to pick and choose what to look for. This information should become a tsunami ROAR coming from every outlet available to us.

Faxes - signs in front of the WH - signs in public hearings - emails - smoke signals -- EVERYTHING. I don't want anyone in Washington to go one DAY without seeing or hearing about THIS study.

[kath]

20. Of course he does - the friendly insurance companies give SOOOO much in campaign donations.

Fuckers.

Obama is bought and paid for, just like the rest of 'em.

[AllyCat]

40. All insurance does is lop money off the top

They are blood-suckers and completely unnecessary.

[glinda]

69. Agreed. Cut the Insurance Companies out and hold Pharma accountable also.

Jobs could go to another sort of agency that works for the Government and the people. In our home, if we had all of our health care costs lowered, money could go for other things.

[AllyCat]

74. My employer pays most of our premium, but we still

chucked out about $2000 last year, not to mention the $1500 in out of pocket expenses our "very good" insurance didn't pay. We could have used that money to buy a new furnace...that would have hired a local professional for installation.

Our baby had to have a $100K surgery a few months ago that would have sunk us with no or poor insurance. Guess we should be happy for that. This would have cost nothing in the UK or elsewhere and cost less overall in a system not riddled with insurance greed.

[Blue Meany]

75. And they have been a massive drain on the productive

sectors of society. No sector should be allowed to threaten the entire economy with its profiteering, but especially not the ones that don't produce anything or provide any services.

[AllyCat]

103. It's expensive, legalized gambling is what it is.

[helderheid]

8. 14

[csziggy]

10. Are they the ones who have the ad I keep seeing on TV? It is a good one whoever does it. n/t

[Cleita]

11. Time to have a giant mail in of this to Daschle and Prez. Obama when they take office.

Thanks for posting this. It's something we figured out with our home calculators, but how much better to have a real study on it.

[Donnachaidh]

13. on the 20th, print out the page at the link, and FAX it with the url for the plan

to the White House -- the FAX number is 202-456-2461.

If EVERYONE reading this today did that, we would get a point across.

FAX for HEALTHCARE FOR ALL.

[surrealAmerican]

14. People here have been saying this for months.

It's good to see a study that quantifies these benefits.

[Winterblues]

15. for decades they have been saying this but the Right Wing Echo Chamber

has said it will bankrupt America. They have not been correct on any issue yet they are considered the "experts". Anyone with just one ounce of common sense could see how this would be a huge boost to business and virtually everyone involved except Big Pharma and the GOP.

[Wapsie B]

59. Seems to me America's already bankrupt using the gop's leadership.

So their argument rings hollow to me. Their problem is with giving a boost to the working class and supposedly shortchanging korporate amerika. In their minds the 1& ers should get the rising tide. But I agree that it would be a huge boon to business to have the burden of health insurance off their backs.

[Vinca]

16. I remember the California Nurses behind Obama during the campaign.

They must have an "in" with him. This report should be seriously considered.

[sutz12]

17. K&R. Must keep this up for the night crew....

Funny how common sense just seems to jump out at you. :shrug:

[Hepburn]

18. Oh, sooooooo perfect! Thank you and K&R! n/t

[Yo_Mama]

19. The study is bogus

Sorry, but I started reading the "full study", and when I got to the part (page 5) that purported to begin the economic analysis, it stated that direct and indirect heath care revenue totaled nearly 6 trillion. This is utterly ridiculous - in Q3 2008 current dollar annualized GDP was about 14.4 trillion. This study claims that healthcare generates over 40% of the entire economy. This is not so, and if it were, we'd be in big trouble.

If the conclusions about percent of GDP are bogus, the claim on jobs is completely bogus, but I am not bothering to read any further to find out how they got there. When you are making up numbers this way, you can do anything. If anyone is interested, you can get GDP figures at www.bea.gov. Total PCE was about 10.16 trillion. Of that, about 1.79 trillion was spent on health care. There are additional expenditures on medicine hidden in the nondurables sections, but it is obvious that the US allocates no more than 20% of personal consumption expenditures to medical care. PCE is about 70% of GDP. There is no way that anyone can make a case that indirect spending on medicine accounts for more than 20% of the economy, and in fact, it accounts for less.

I don't know why people even bother to do this sort of thing. Using the same methodology, I could prove that dogs account for 25% of GDP, or that UFOs are the only thing keeping our economy growing (which it is not).

Yes, I am an economist.

FYI, the case for single-payer efficiencies are largely that it would reduce jobs. I have never heard of CalNurses before, but as a result of this exercise in duplicity I have formed a very negative opinion of the organization.

[Career Prole]

21. Yo Mama!

"Yes, I am an economist."
Sorry, but I have of late lost all faith in economists. You should have said you were a leprechaun. It would have given your words more weight...and please, please...don't point me to government economic figures. Those numbers have been fudged by bush appointees for so long now the damned well is poisoned.

But hey...welcome to DU! :hi:

[Yo_Mama]

23. Laughing

<i>I have of late lost all faith in economists</i>

I sympathize. I work mostly for banks, and I can't count the bogus "economic" reports I have had to deal with during this bubble. I suppose that's why I reacted so strongly to this. Apparently we do not learn very well that fantasy does not pay.

But I am the real thing, which is why my banking clients are not bankrupt!!!

[Career Prole]

25. Okay...

...but could you wear a green hat and smoke a wee clay pipe so I can differentiate you from those others? :D

[elocs]

47. Ahh, but had Yo_Mama totally agreed with the OP and said she was an economist,

then her post would have been jubilantly celebrated here and her being an economist would have been proof of her wisdom.

[Career Prole]

52. Really? And you think that of me why, exactly?

Maybe when you know me a little better you can take another shot at reading my mind with better results.
Until then, hold your guessing about what I think to yourself, 'kay? Thank ya, now. :hi:

[elocs]

67. I think that of DU in general, not you in particular.

Not to worry about reading your mind because I won't even be able to see your posts. :hi: (that works for "bye", too)

[NMDemDist2]

22. welcome to DU Yo_Mama!

:hi:

I wondered how it could create so many jobs, since the insurance companies would be laying off like mad

sad as it is to say, thanks for your input

[Yo_Mama]

24. Just want to add

Even though this particular study is bogus, it does not debunk the entire argument for single-pay. I do not have a personal position on the issue, because everything depends on implementation.

I do want to stress that one nonsensical "study" does not mean that there is no potential benefit for single-pay. My only point is that this is not good information; it reminds me very much of National Association of Realtor economic analyses in recent years, which is not a good thing.

[tucsonlib]

46. I'm Not An Economist

But it doesn't take a genius to notice that the only people who oppose single-pay are those who currently have insurance. How's your coverage, Mama? Enjoying those co-pays and deductibles?

[Donnachaidh]

63. Yo -- you say you are an economist

So tell us Dude -- what industry do you work for?

[specimenfred1984]

91. No "personal position" huh? I guess you're a robot then

"Good German" might be a better term. Sniff sniff, what's that smell? I smell a pig frying, a roasted repuke porker!

[JDPriestly]

30. Actually, as I posted in response to another post on here, single-payer

would obviate the need for Workers' Compensation to cover medical costs. It would also reduce the amounts of medicals in physical injury lawsuits (and eliminate the cause d'etre of many of those suits) and thereby generate huge savings for businesses that have to cover the high cost of Workers' Compensation coverage and pay excessively high attorneys' fees and other costs associated with a lot of the physical injury and products liability litigation. Many businesses, especially small businesses, would want to and be able to hire more employees if they didn't have to pay so much for Workers' Compensation and other insurance.

Even if you are correct about fudged numbers (and I cannot judge that), the savings I mention above make single payer a huge plus for the economy.

For example, I used to work in the administration of a non-profit that hired people who had recently been homeless or who were homeless for various jobs including maintenance jobs. Our Workers' Comp premiums went through the work and caused us to have to cut way, way back on the project. It would have been economically feasible to hire these people and ease their way back into the job market if they had had single payer coverage for their healthcare. So, you see the economic impact of single payer overall is positive especially for the long term unemployed.

[elocs]

49. But is it not interesting how the numbers in the OP are enthusiastically and unquestioningly

accepted here as gospel without any other corroboration?

[HamdenRice]

58. Single payer does not eliminate workman's comp medical liability

This idea has been circulating for a while but it's not true. Certainly you are correct, that administrative costs will fall drastically because the underlying medical costs will fall drastically.

But employers who cause injury will still be liable to their employers, and the costs of those injuries will continue to be spread/insured by a workman's comp system. The difference is that the single payer will seek compensation from the workman's comp system.

Here is a discussion of this topic from a few months ago, as post 24 down:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4520897#4525016

[JDPriestly]

98. How can you say it will not end workmen's comp when no plan has

been adopted. If a plan is proposed that ends workmen's comp and makes many damages actions unnecessary, it will save the U.S. a lot of money and be well received.

In case you don't realize it, I lived in Europe for quite a few years -- various countries -- and absolutely loved the single payer systems there. I had two babies -- serious complications both times -- and two small children. The health care was wonderful. I could choose my doctor from a list of all the doctors around, could change doctors every so many months (quite frequently as I recall), paid a small co-pay for prescriptions and got excellent care. It was easy to get appointments with my doctors. I have no complaints about here.

In the U.S. on the contrary, I have to make sure that I go to a doctor who is covered by my insurance plan. It's all complicated. Lots of things are not covered. It's awful. My husband actually had an accident on the job in Europe. His insurance covered it. There was no problem. And our insurance payments were taken out of our pay in the same way the Social Security insurance is taken out everywhere -- as a tax proportioned to the amount we earned.

It was great.

[HamdenRice]

100. I agree that single payer is a great system, but that's beside the point

I hope you read the thread I linked to for an explanation, but I'll summarize it again.

Workman's comp is not primarily a system for financing or insuring health care. It's primarily a system to force employers to pay for the damage they cause to employees. It replaces the usual system of lawsuits (tort law) in which an injured person can sue the person who caused the injury. WC was set up because it was considered unfair for employees to have to go through the trouble and expense of a lawsuit (and possibly lose to well heeled employers and their lawyers). So WC does away with most elements of proof. If you are injured on the job, WC pays. Meanwhile the employer pays into WC as though it were an insurance plan.

So although WC looks like health insurance, one of its main goals is to make sure employers pay for the costs they inflict on employees. Moreover, the theory behind it is that the products that employers make should include the cost of the injuries they cause, rather than externalizing that cost to the employee or the public. If chicken processing causes a certain amount of carpal tunnel syndrome, then the price of every chicken in the supermarket must include a few pennies for the WC system to pay employees who get carpal tunnel syndrome.

If employers don't bear the cost of their injuries, then they have little incentive to reduce the number of those injuries.

If we move to a single payer European system, the larger legal system will still want to impose the cost of injuries on employers of the injuries they cause.

An employee who is injured on the job in a single payer system gets faster, hassle free care, as you point out. But if an employer caused that injury, the taxpayer in general should not pay for that care -- the employer should, and in turn the people who purchase chickens should.

So in most single payer systems, the single payer system pays for the care upfront, but then the single payer system seeks reimbursement from the employer through the WC system. The closest thing we have to single payer is Medicare and Medicaid. If an employee on M/M is injured on the job, M/M seeks reimbursement from Workman's Comp. If an employee with private insurance is injured on the job, the insurance company seeks reimbursement from WC. That's called "subrogation" is intended to make sure that the employer, and not the public in general, pays for the injuries caused by that specific employer.

If we get single payer, the employee will not have to deal with the hassle of getting medical care from WC, but the government single payer insurer will still seek reimbursement from WC. WC won't go away, although it will be somewhat more invisible to the employee.

From the employee's perspective it may seem like the health care part of WC has disappeared. But from the employer's perspective, it will still be there. So your suggestion at the head of this subthread that costs to employers for WC will disappear is simply not true.

[JDPriestly]

108. Worker's Comp is no-fault. The employer pays a premium based on

various factors including job classifications of employees, past safety history and other factors in California. The insurance pays medical costs and other costs related to injuries incurred on the job even no matter whether the employee or the employer is at fault. The employer's fault is not an issue except in certain circumstances.

Sometimes the employee sues a third party such as the manufacturer of a vehicle or something like that for damages. But the employee does not have to prove the employer's fault in order to be compensated by Worker's Comp. The employee just has to show that the injury happened on or is related to the job.

Outside of Worker's Comp, the employee may sue the employer for damages under certain circumstances such as when the employee can prove that the employer hit the employee. There are other exclusions from Worker's Comp which allow the employee to sue the employer.

[Faygo Kid]

38. You never heard of the California Nurses Association?

Gov. Schwarzenegger took them on, and he lost.

Maybe you ought to check out their website. They do a lot more than this one study. They are a very big organization - of nurses, you know, those working folks.

[dpibel]

80. Or is it your objection that's bogus?

You're pretending that $6 trillion figure is all value-added, which is the basis of GDP.

In fact, they're talking about total economic activity, which they peg, nationwide, at $24.7 trillion.

They're not saying, as you claim, that they're dealing with "indirect spending on medicine."

They're looking at spending on medicine ($2.1 trillion) plus the economic activity represented by health care workers spending their wages, and other economic activity associated with the initial spending.

I would suggest people do what you seem to hope they will not, and look at the report for themselves.

[RaleighNCDUer]

88. The case for single payer efficiencies are largely that it would reduce

the 30% overhead that is skimmed out of the healthcare system by the health insurance industry.

[Confusious]

26. Just a question

What happens to all the jobs in the private insurance sector?

Not that I like insurance companies, they rank on par with the parasite banks and credit card companies, but what about the job loss there in the equation?

[Career Prole]

43. They'll move on.

Believe me, I can sympathize with them. I repair printing presses at a daily newspaper for a living. I need it to last another decade, but I'm pretty sure that isn't in the cards and all of us in the newspaper biz know it. My point is, if the private insurance business dies, it died for a reason. It won't be the clerks' fault, nor is it my fault people would rather get their news fresh and free off the internet rather than wait for their paper...but out we'll go. Someone always builds a better mousetrap.
On the bright side, we pressmen and insurance clerks would then have medical care despite our mutual predicaments instead of losing our healthcare along with our jobs.

[erebusman]

96. I'm for this and my wife works in the private insurance industry

Private insurance industry folks may have some impact by this; but not quite as large as you might expect.

Some examples:

Most insurance companies have more than 1 line of insurance they carry:
Homeowners
Auto
Umbrella
Liability
etc

Even those who specialize in health related - say the clerks in the Dr's office who do the "billing" right now. They will still need to send paperwork and bills to the government for reimbursement. They will have jobs.

Even HMO's they will be billing the goverment, the people who process that information will still have work to do.

Now will some jobs be lost? Probably because the volume of paperwork and denied claims and back & forth refusal to pay for a year will go away .. but that amount can be absorbed especially with the new job creation due to having solid healthcare in the country.

[Connonym]

27. As much as businesses like to bitch about the cost of paying to insure employees

I think they don't really want to see universal healthcare. Universal healthcare will help workers not just for the access to healthcare but it will also allow workers to focus on other issues involving work conditions. Right now a lot of us have insurance as our pressing worry at work and having that no longer be an issue will allow us to focus on other workplace issues (stagnate wages, dearth of paid leave, being forced to work too many hours or not able to work part time, etc.) I think it will be a great boon to workers' rights and will be empowering to us in the long run. We're long overdue for having the ball back in the workers' court.

[JDPriestly]

28. And -- a single-payer system would obviate the need for Workers'

Compensation systems that pay for medical benefits. Workers' Compensation would only pay for lost income. That would be a great boost for businesses, especially small businesses. In fact, completely overhauling Workers' Compensation after instituting single-payer wpi;d cause businesses to hire more people. Workers' Compensation costs are way out of bounds.

[Upfront]

29. Our nation crys out for this.

Will the Democrats have the guts to do this?

[okiru109]

31. with all the talk of our economic woes on tv isn't the silence on this obvious option deafening

our leaders must recognize this as the PERFECT time (The Shock Doctrine) to enact this kind of legislation.

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book

[roamer65]

32. It would bring much more employment freedom.

Imagine an employer not being able to use health benefits to make you fear for your job. Employment would revolve around $$$ and become much more "mercenary". That is why employers are fighting single-payor healthcare so much.

[Still Sensible]

33. An honest question

How many people in the current hodge podge of insurance, HMO, PPO, etc. would lose their jobs? Is the assumption that most of them would fill the 2.6 million jobs noted?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

34. My mother still pays $250 a month for Medigap insurance and has Med D on top of that

We figure she's spending at least $400 a month to pay for Medicare B,
plus her Medigap ins (needed if you have someone frail), and then
Medicare D plus med co pays.

I would like to see us go all the way like many of the developed countries and
everyone has coverage.

If you wish to subsidize the greedy insurance companies, you can still
pay for private insurance.

My cousins in NZ and AU both have public health care, I think one pays
for private ins so she can have more choice or faster service.

But if you get have an emergency you don't have to worry about going
bankrupt if you seek treatment.

[xchrom]

35. recommend

[WhiteTara]

36. this is a good sign.

Mayby he will hear the right people. Go humanity!

[trthnd4jstc]

37. Yes. Simplicity save money. What a concept? n/t

[salguine]

39. What Obama needs to realize, and that every one of his predecessors have failed to grasp,

is that the the President who finally brings universal, single-payer national healthcare to America will be guaranteed to be ranked by history as one of the greatest Presidents of all time, up there with Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington and FDR.

[AzDar]

41. K & R

[AllyCat]

42. While I have deep concerns about the way CNA-NNOC does business

I am glad to see someone putting this info out to the public.

[Chisox08]

44. It will create new jobs

Not only because there will be a need for people to run that massive program but it will reduce the payroll cost on business allowing them to hire more people. It also allows the unions to negotiate for better contracts due to the fact that health care cost would no longer be apart of the negotiation. Now if only we can have it Republican proofed. We all know that once they take power they will break it and claim that it doesn't work.

[Cleita]

45. Another...

:kick:

[bananas]

50. k&r and hooray for calnurses! nt

[BrklynLiberal]

51. Will this study ever make it to the MSM???

[harmonicon]

53. duh

[stlsaxman]

54. Kick and Rec

[Kitty Herder]

55. K&R

[reprehensor]

56. Do it.

It's about time.

[glowing]

57. Did they factor in the many losses by private ins. employees?

[Celebration]

60. Or, what if we spent that much money on something else instead?

Like, for instance, green energy?

Any government spending of that amount of money is going to create a lot of jobs.

Don't get me wrong. I think we need single payer. I'm just trying to follow the logic.

[Donnachaidh]

64. Do the private insurance companies factor in job losses due to the cost of insurance on businesses?

Doubtful THAT happens. Why should the insurance companies expect preferential treatment?

[glowing]

79. My sis n law works for Blue Cross.. she gets to sit at home and process claims

Its a great job that keeps her close to her kids and pays the bills. She's was a single mom for a while. If she loses her job and then has to go find a new one in this job market, she'll lose big time. I'm just wondering if they've factored in the losses of support people for insurance companies. I'm assuming that, due to experience, she could probably get a job doing medicare processing.. but currently, she's got a pension and is close to retirement (for some reason it kinda like a police officer or something, she can retire in 10yrs-- she'll be 45). Anyway, she loses big time if we get rid of private ins. all together. I understand that single payer system is the best and hopefully end all conclusion, but I'm also assuming that someone along the way is trying to figure out the impact of all the billing support staff who will now be out of a job; many of them women.

[Dawgs]

81. You are correct.

Unfortunately, so many on DU and elsewhere fail to realize that many people will be seriously affected by this. Not saying we shouldn't move toward single payer, but a transition plan is absolutely necessary. Too many people's live are at stake.

[glowing]

87. Otherwise, there has to be a plan to move these support staff persons into a

job that is similar in pay, stature, and level that these persons who have been in the business can transition into. Most people wouldn't like the idea of being disposable just because. Transitioning into something that replaces staff into new positions and replaces the old private insurance co's.

[Romulox]

61. Too bad the Obama administration is adamantly opposed to single payer healthcare. nt

[Dawgs]

82. Do you have a quote to back that up?

I've never heard him say he's "adamantly opposed to single payer".

[Romulox]

85. He campaigned against it. Called it "extreme". Look it up yourself. nt

[ellacott]

93. He never said he was adamently opposed to it

“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.


But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system. “Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”

“People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said. “They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/19/obama-touts-single-payer-system/

[Romulox]

95. Quibble about "adamant" if you will; Obama opposes Single Payer Healthcare. nt

[ellacott]

101. Not qubbling about adament

He is not opposed to it. He said so in the link I posted. Most of you all feel you can just switch everyone to Medicare immediately. Most of you all aren't aware of the amount of work required to do this.

Obama feels you can transition into single payer. Most of you all feel you don't need to transition into it. That does not mean that Obama is opposed to single payer.

[pinto]

65. kick

:kick:

[MessiahRp]

66. Kick... this is the health care plan we actually need.

Not that health insurance giveaway crap.

Rp

[lovuian]

68. Its got to happen

our medical system is a disaster

[blm]

71. Just saw this thread, Donna.....apparently my post echoes this one.

I didn't see this study thread, but, I thank you for it - it validates my own thoughts on the subject.

[Better Believe It]

72. Labor Leaders Kick-Off Single Payer Healthcare Campaign At National Union Conference!

Please read this post at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4828848&mesg_id=4833253

[demodonkey]

73. Rec. #125 and a kick -- WE NEED SINGLE PAYER NOW!

We can't afford NOT to do this.

[L0oniX]

77. Employers and employees would not longer have to pay for the insurance =

much more money left over for both employer and employee. Makes good sense. I doubt we will ever see it. The sociopaths who control the system would rather get richer while we all die for lack of enough money for insurance.

[BlueMTexpat]

78. Even if the numbers in this particular study have been fudged,

which is not something that I cannot expound upon with authority, the virtues in single-payer far outweigh the vices. It's about time that the US rejoined the rest of the industrialized world. We cannot afford not to.

Thanks for the post. :applause:

[Better Believe It]

83. K & R

[FlaGranny]

84. I have no doubt

this kind of system is a great improvement, I have to wonder if job LOSS has been considered and factored in. While this might create 2.6 million new jobs, how many jobs will be lost in the insurance industry and in medical office insurance collection jobs? That needs to be considered in the total costs. Just about every doctor's office I know of has at least one employee that does nothing but insurance collection.

I am on Medicare myself and I have greater peace of mind about my health care than I ever had before in my entire life. It would be wonderful if everyone had the same security.

[loyalsister]

86. Duh

There is probably quite a difference between the kind of bailout needed for the auto industry had we had this all along.

[truedelphi]

89. Yes it would indeed increase the jobs here at home

And it would re-distribute the number of jobs according to age.

Those of us over 45, especially those of us over 55, often find that we cannot obtain employment because the company hiring needs to limit the number of employees whose health insurance premiums are the most expensive.

Universal Single Patyer health Insurance is the one important item needed now.

President Obama must be persuaded that in order to be a two term Preisent, he will do everything that he can.

So far, his appointment of Gupta as Surgeon General is not encouraging. And his health Insurance Proposal kept far too many CEO's fromt he insurance industry sitting at their expensive, pigs at t atrough type of position.

[specimenfred1984]

90. Now that's a fact and I don't even have to read the study

Good to see "a study" though. K&R!

[midnight]

92. I can't wait to forward this to my family in healthcare. Thanks!

[LaPera]

94. Of course it would - But now the fight against insurance corporations who

make hundreds of billions of dollar a year with minimum coverage...These same greedy insurance companies will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars through lobbyist, spreading lies on republican media (Limbaugh & the rest) propaganda ads, fighting to keep their fucked up insurance corporations health care offerings status quo, the same forever!

Don't you just hate these republican corporate fucks?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

97. Late bump

[blm]

105. and a later bump

.

[Common Sense Party]

99. Yeah. Medicare is so well-funded as it is.

Let's put everyone on it!

:sarcasm:

[demodonkey]

102. Arrgh! HR 676 will EXPAND & IMPROVE Medicare. And take out the for-profit "insurance" interest.

Please at least learn about how the proposal works before you :sarcasm: it.

Please.

You could start here:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

[Common Sense Party]

104. You could stand to learn some facts as well.

Watch I.O.U.S.A. on YouTube. Find out how woefully underfunded Medicare is in its present form and then tell me how big the national debt will be in thirty years if we add EVERYBODY to the system and only put a 7% tax on employers and a 2% extra income tax on individuals. The country is going broke.

[demodonkey]

106. Yeah? Well I won't learn them from you because you don't have yours straight, plus you are mean too.

"...if we add EVERYBODY..."

So tell me Mean One, who then exactly would you like to exclude from healthcare? Who do you want to let die in order to keep the USA from "going broke?" Yourself? Me? My mother? Your kid? The disabled guy who lives down the road?

Choose.

And while you are choosing remember that ANY choice made is going to cost our nation -- and doing nothing about our healthcare system is the most expensive choice of all.

We ALREADY spend more of our GDP in the USA on healthcare than ANY OTHER COUNTRY. Period. And that is sucking everything down. We have to lower that percentage and at the same time comprehensively cover all our people to stop this drain on our economy. We need a simple system with minimum paperwork, easy-to-understand coverage, and everyone basically covered the same way for the same things. No more co-pays, medical bankruptcies (and don't think THEY aren't having an effect on the economy as a whole), and bake sales to save the life of uninsured kids who need to go to the hospital.

Every other major industrialized country and a lot of third-world ones have managed to make this work -- but not us.

An obscene 31 percent of every USA dollar spent on healthcare goes to administration, paperwork, and insurance company profits. But traditional (single-payer) Medicare costs less than 5% of the total money spent on it to run itself. That's 26 fucking percent savings that could be realized there, money that could be going to care instead of crap. Plus with no more co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket, it will free up other money in the private sector that will be spent to stimulate the economy or saved for the future.

I know times are bad but they are going to get a lot worse unless and until we start acting like the rest of the world and start taking care of our people. As sick as I am of community spaghetti dinners for medical bills, I'm more sick of hearing nay-sayers say that we can't or shouldn't change. Right now we are seeing a substantial percentage of our population that has financial problems because of medical bills (or health problems because of no coverage.) RIGHT NOW people are suffering. If we keep things as they are, these people aren't going to be buying new goods and services anytime soon and they aren't going to be earning and saving for the future.

Not for their own future OR ours as a nation.

[Common Sense Party]

107. "Mean"? That's the level of debate you seek?

No thanks.

One could easily make the argument that it's "mean" to subject our grandchildren to pay for $52 Trillion of our underfunded Medicare costs, but I don't think I'm comfortable with childish name-calling.

[Yellow Horse]

109. Well, you know the old saying, Mean People Suck.

If the shoe fits.

A bird in the hand is worth $52 T in Bush.

etc.