When did it become health INSURANCE reform?

[Shanti Mama]

What the hell? From an email in my inbox just now, from Mitch Stewart of BarackObama.com. ASKING FOR MONEY!!!!!!

"You've probably seen the headlines: Opponents of change are doing everything they can to delay health insurance reform."

I am PISSED OFF.

[harun]

1. I'm pissed off too.

[trayfoot]

2. Yep! Pissed is the word for it!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. It became that from the first day when they took single payer off the table

It becomes that even more as they appear to be successfully taking public option off the table.

[superduperfarleft]

16. Um, single-payer IS insurance. As is the public option. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. Single payer is insurance the same way that social security is insurance.

It ISN'T.

Single payer is a means of governmental distribution of funds to cover health care costs of our citizens, those funds collected as a federal tax.

Insurance is 'if you pay in, you are covered...maybe'.

Single payer addresses health care as a right.

Insurance addresses health care as a privilege, paid for by the privileged.

Single payer is no more health insurance than the fire department is fire insurance.

[superduperfarleft]

47. People do pay in, through taxes.

Single-payer is health insurance, regardless of what your ill-informed "opinion" of the matter is.

Oh yeah, and social security: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security

"Social security primarily refers to a social insurance program providing social protection, or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment and others."

[rurallib]

4. Ain't that something? And as soon as it did the insurance industry won.

[Captain Hilts]

5. It's ALWAYS been health INSURANCE reform. It's been mis-labelled by Republicans who want to scare

people into thinking they'll have to change doctors. Your doctor is not going to disappear. Your rates will not go up. You'll just be paying for it differently.

THIS was THE most important thing about last Wednesday's news conference. PresBO corrected the language of the debate.

[Autumn]

13. I missed that, I thought it was called

health care reform and at Wednesday's presser it was called health care finance reform.:shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

28. Well, that's part of the problem. The message is not clear. nt

[FormerDittoHead]

6. People are waking up. We've been played. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. That always happens too late, doesn't it?

x(

[Autumn]

7. It's an old shell game

PISSED OFF doesn't begin to describe my feelings.

[City Lights]

8. I'm beyond pissed off.

:nuke:

[Melissa G]

9. INSURANCE Reform will not fix health care. n/t

[closeupready]

11. If Barack doesn't fix health care as he promised, he will not be re-elected, IMO.

That is his mandate and his responsibility. He promised that, and he owes it to the American people.

[superduperfarleft]

15. What's wrong with healthcare in this country? n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. It's expensive and millions can't afford it?

:shrug:

[superduperfarleft]

18. That's a problem with paying for it, not the care itself. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. Well I think that maybe that is what the poster meant, don't you?

:shrug:

[superduperfarleft]

23. No, I think like many on DU and elsewhere, the poster doesn't understand the issue. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Can you afford your healthcare?

Judging by your posts, I'd guess you can. Therefore, there's no problem with healthcare.

You fucking right wing assholes think that it's just a problem with the fucking MONEY?

It is the assumption in our 'system' that healthcare is a privilege, not a right. Only the wealthy need apply.

THAT is the problem with healthcare in this country. Denial of access, whether it is because of lack of funds or because of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation, is STILL denial of access.

YOU don't understand the issue.

[superduperfarleft]

41. And nothing you said had anything to do with what I posted.

But don't let that get in the way of your ignorant screed.

Or read this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6176456&mesg_id=6176983

I know, right, what a freeper! :eyes:

I'll await your apology for calling me a right-winger.

[yodoobo]

44. Well that sort of makes sense actually

its not the the care that is the problem.

Its the lack of access to the care that is the problem.

Most of the time access is denied because of funding for the care (aka insurance, or a large stack of money)

But its also denied for other reasons as well.

I'm not sure why you are both arguing. You seem to be saying the same thing.

[superduperfarleft]

46. We are, idiot boy would just rather call me a right-winger for attempting to

educate him on the specifics of the issue. :eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. You don't answer my questions and think you are going to 'educate' me?

I don't need to call you right wing - you are condemned by your own statements.

[superduperfarleft]

50. The only question you ever asked me was

"are you able to afford your healthcare." For one, I don't see how that's the least bit relevant. Secondly, I don't pay for my healthcare, my health insurance program does. If you have health insurance, you don't pay for your care either, your health insurance company does. If you enroll in the public option, you won't pay for your care, the government will.

So to sum up: (1) single-payer IS health insurance (2) social security IS described as a social insurance program (3) you don't have even the faintest idea how Canada's system works, and (4) you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Still waiting for you to apologize for calling me a right-winger...

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. No, it is a problem with the care itself, because most rational people

avoid taking on unaffordable debt. In this case that means NOT getting the needed health care.

Simply put, the health care that does not exist is a problem.

[superduperfarleft]

43. The care exists, people are just unable to pay for it.

So the question becomes about who pays for it. In a single-payer system, the government pays for it. With a public option, the government pays for it. With the system we have today, private insurers pay for it.

I seriously can't break this down any further without resorting to crayons.

[Laelth]

12. Obama used that phrase, "insurance reform," several times in the town hall yesterday.

It is obvious that the administration's objectives have changed. I am disappointed.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Donnachaidh]

19. disappointed doesn't cover it in my house -- freaking OUTRAGED.

And BETRAYED.

Tell me, how do you institute insurance reform for those who could not GET insurance? This is smelling like yet ANOTHER give-away to corporate America.

[Laelth]

25. Me too (on feeling betrayed).

But, I hold out hope that the amendment allowing states to enact single-payer systems will remain in the final bill. If it does, I will support it, no matter how much of a turd the bill is in its final form. This seems to be Dennis Kucinich's position. If we can just get one state to enact a single-payer system, the dominoes will fall, and we will emerge with a single-payer system in most states (if not all of them). Single-payer health care in Canada started in just one province, after all, and then it spread. Now, Canadians would even consider getting rid of it.

That's about the only hope I have left. Otherwise, I agree with you. It looks like we have been sold out.

:dem:

-Laelth

[superduperfarleft]

14. It's always been insurance reform.

Single-payer is insurance. A public option is insurance.

After all, paying for healthcare is the problem that calls for reform, not the state of healthcare itself.

And it seems the #1 problem with the debate in this country is that it's being dominated by people who don't know what the hell they're talking about, both Democrats and Republicans.

[Donnachaidh]

20. what? The state of healthcare in this country is ABYSMAL.

Unless of course you have the CASH to play the game.

Single payer is UNIVERSAL healthcare -- cutting out the CANCER of insurance companies.

[superduperfarleft]

22. Single payer is universal health INSURANCE, provided by the govt.

The problem has never been the care itself, just the cost of it and the ability of people to pay for it.

The confusing of the issue, by both Dems and Republicans, is what has allowed all sorts of misinformation about socialized healthcare, loss of "choice," blah blah blah. People need to stop going off half-cocked before they even understand an issue.

[Donnachaidh]

26. tomato - tomahto.

HEALTHCARE is NOT insurance.

[superduperfarleft]

30. I give up. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. Bullshit.

Single payer is NOT health insurance any more than having a fire department, paid for by the government, is fire insurance.

When your house burns down, and your homeowners insurance sends you a check, do you need to pay off the fire department?

Single-payer is ACCESS. Lack of access to care IS the care itself. The entire 'insurance' paradigm has to be removed from the health care issue. Single payer is more appropriately compared to the interstate system. Everybody pays in, in taxes, and everybody uses it just as much as they need it. Is the highway system 'road insurance'?

[superduperfarleft]

45. How many Canadians have you actually talked to?

The doctors and hospitals are private, for the most part. Everyone has a card just like you would get with a private insurance plan. People seek care, the doctors go to the government for reimbursement. Private insurers offer supplemental coverage for procedures that are not covered under the provincial plan. How is that not insurance?

[Davis_X_Machina]

51. The 'fire department' model

...is what Great Britain has.

The state collects the taxes, and uses the money to run the hospitals it owns, employs the physicians it hires, etc. There are intermediate administrative bodies -- hospital trusts, etc -- but they're like individual town fire departments. I have no problem with the model -- in fact, I rather prefer it.

Canada doesn't work like that, though.

Insurance ≠ "rapacious for-profit publicly traded on Wall St insurance", not automatically, not intrinsically. Only in this country.

[Kansas Wyatt]

24. Anything less than telling the Insurance Industry to go to Hell is a failure.

Death Merchants do NOTHING for health care, and in fact, harm health care.

"failure" - If the Death Merchant is still willing to be a part of it, it means they are still making a lot of money off of it. Which again, does nothing for health care.

[lunatica]

27. I am way beyond being pissed off. I noticed that word substitution a while back

When they first said single payer was off the table. You can't separate them from the word games. I have only the tiniest hope left, and that's just because life sometimes interferes with the best laid plans of these rats.

[Warpy]

29. Single payer would be health insurance reform

All that's being discussed is how to pay for health care so that Americans don't go bankrupt if they get sick.

That means it is now and always has been insurance reform.

[Davis_X_Machina]

33. I know that, and you know that...

...but you'll never get anyone else on here, with few exceptions, to believe you.

'Insurance' ≠ "for-profit insurance company publicly traded on Wall Street". The vaunted French system is a health-insurance scheme. The Canadian single-payer system is a health-insurance scheme.

The only non-insurance-based health care delivery systems are NHS-style systems where the physicians are employees of the government. (Me, I have no problem with that, but I can understand why politically that's a hard sell here.)

There is a great deal of 'four legs good, two legs bad' label-mongering on this board, and it's discouraging sometimes. If the engaged and interested part of the community can't be bothered to get it right, what hope is there for the majority?

[superduperfarleft]

36. +1. Too bad few people will read your post. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. If single payer IS health insurance reform

WHY THE FUCK IS IT NOT BEING CONSIDERED?

All that's being discussed is how the support the private insurance industry regardless if Americans are going bankrupt if they get sick.

That means it is not now and never has been insurance reform.

[Davis_X_Machina]

52. It is being considered...

...its' called HR 676, and it doesn't have the votes to get out of committee, not right now, not in the House, and definitely not in the Senate.

Congress still makes the laws...

[L. Coyote]

31. "Can you chip in $1 each day ..." When did we have to start paying for representation?

Bad enough that this country cannot provide health care for every American,
but we can borrow money for half the military budget on the planet and thereby enrich capitalists.


=================================================
Something unusual
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:13 AM
From: "Mitch Stewart, BarackObama.com" <[e-mail] >


You've probably seen the headlines: Opponents of change are doing everything they can to delay health insurance reform. As a Republican strategy memo concluded, "If we slow this sausage-making process down, we can defeat it."

They're betting that as time goes by, our energy will flag, our movement will weaken, and they'll ultimately be able to block any change.

But they just don't get it -- thanks to the regular Americans who are reaching out in neighborhoods nationwide, our movement is expanding every day. In fact, over the weekend, we surpassed our big goal of one million people taking action for health insurance reform. And with your help, we'll keep growing and prove that our opponents' strategy of "delay, delay, delay" simply won't work.

So I want to ask you for something unusual: Can you chip in $1 each day until we pass real health insurance reform? A huge response will show the insurance companies and their allies in Congress that their delay tactics will only make our movement stronger.

[canoeist52]

32. Applaud the naming change from healthcare to insurance reform.

The government needs to get between health insurance scams and the public at the very least.. I'd prefer Single Payer and lose insurance companies altogether. By the way, in the UK, its's called National Health INSURANCE.

[Davis_X_Machina]

34. Yeah, but...

...the NHS is a different kind of delivery model. The 'insurance' tag is really a survival from earlier pre-Beverage & Bevan health care provision systems -- it's the name of a tax, really.

[Uncle Joe]

35. For profit "health" insurance is structurally, fatally flawed, it can't be reformed.

The entire concept is dysfunctional and anathema to national health care for the American People. Every dollar of profit they make for their shareholders and bonuses for their executives is a dollar taken away from actual health care. That dynamic can never be rectified.

This doesn't take in to account all the added expense of time and energy; doctors and their staff must spend on the universe of various insurance forms and qualifiers.

[guitar man]

40. I got that one too

And I sent this reply:


I don't want health INSURANCE reform, I want HEALTHCARE reform. If that means yanking the corporate charters and licences of every health insurance company in the country an putting them out of business, then so be it.

If the insurers are going to stay around as part of a total healthcare reform package, then they need to be put on a short leash and have it made clear to them that making profit in this country is a PRIVELEGE, not a right.

I have had enough of them milking my family budget dry every month with their outrageous premiums and increases only to have to spend hours on the phone arguing with them to get them to pay what they are supposed to. ENOUGH!! Stop cow-towing to the damned insurance companies and do the right thing for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!


:grr: