"Obamacare turns the insurers into public utilities, thus setting us on the road to single payer."

[phleshdef]

Yes, I know Krauthammer is right wing scum, but he oftentimes can be a very perceptive right wing scum, at least in his own way.

He says this in his recent piece regarding the tax cut deal:

No, cries the left: Obama violated a sacred principle. A 39.6 percent tax rate versus 35 percent is a principle? "This is the public option debate all over again," said Obama at his Tuesday news conference. He is right. The left never understood that to nationalize health care there is no need for a public option because Obamacare turns the private insurers into public utilities, thus setting us inexorably on the road to the left's Promised Land: a Canadian-style single-payer system. The left is similarly clueless on the tax-cut deal: In exchange for temporarily forgoing a small rise in upper-income rates, Obama pulled out of a hat a massive new stimulus - what the left has been begging for since the failure of Stimulus I but was heretofore politically unattainable.

Obama's public exasperation with this infantile leftism is both perfectly understandable and politically adept. It is his way back to at least the appearance of centrist moderation. The only way he will get a second look from the independents who elected him in 2008 - and abandoned the Democrats in 2010 - is by changing the prevailing (and correct) perception that he is a man of the left.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120904472.html

I agree with this observation on the healthcare bill and I'd add that the mandate, if it holds, will be a huge catalyst for single payer. The government, by mandating that everyone has to be covered is inherently giving itself the responsibility to make sure that everyone can get covered. The insurance companies will be seen more and more and as unnecessary complication as this plays out and because government has opened the door to exercising more control over them, they will become less and less powerful to fight it. People are spending too much time thinking about how this is gonna work out in 2012 and 2013 and not enough time thinking about where it will be going by 2015-1016. When someone like Krauthammer, even if its in his own cynical right wing way, can understand long view politics, why can't the rest of us?

[msongs]

1. we only wish lol nt

[phleshdef]

2. omg snarky gimmick reply lol nt

Why such a deep rebuttle when "nt" would clearly say it all.

[truedelphi]

24. I'm with you on that one.

Obama's Health Care "Reform" effort does indeed turn the Big Insurers into Public Utilities, but with no Public Consumers Union to oversee massive rate increases, nor any real ability to affect the policy.

At least if you are unhappy with your Public Utilities, you can make that clear to local officials.

Within the scope of the HCR Act, you have to deal with the 635 people in House and Senate, and that is a daunting task.

[Sheepshank]

28. Ahhh...but the start of cost containment is there..

by HCR mandate, 85% of premiums will have to go to actual health care costs. The insurer will have their "premium increase wings" severaly clipped. After 2014 what will push premium increases will be medical costs, hospitals fees, etc etc.

[martymar64]

33. How is that enforceable. Big Health will hide it all with Enron-style accounting

And of course, the Government will look the other way and the Cheerleaders will be chanting something about 3-d chess or some such drivel.

[truedelphi]

57. Martymar 64 understands what is going on

The accounting mechanisms of the Big "Health Care" Organizations have been corrupted for over the past thirty years.

For instance, please examine what has gone on just within the confines of the matter of the electronic medical records.

When every single Calif.-based Sutter Health Org (except one) has pretended to need to create software already created, to the tune of 300,000 bucks, for each hospital, and no one except ONE MAN calls them on that BS, what does that foretell about what the public will see in terms of "Enron Accounting."

Please see my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=29870&mesg_id=29947

regarding the details.

[TheKentuckian]

79. MLR is not containment. It is likely to push cost higher.

It increases the incentive to have as many dollars as possible pass through their hands.

[egoclothes]

82. Yes. if only that were true.

[truthspeak]

3. I'm sorry, but the left's blindness....

...can be breathtaking at times. If they would simply adjust their minds to a "long game" approach, they would see that they will ultimately get most of what they want. Patience people!

[girl gone mad]

18. What's the long game here?

The closest example to "Obamacare" we have to go by has not been a success in the long run, at least in terms of keeping costs down and making care more accessible, which one would assume to be the most important goals of health reform.

[Recursion]

65. Exchange premiums in Mass are down 14% this year

So, yes, they are keeping costs down. Employer-provided insurers will either have to find a way to keep competitive, or they'll lose the market as employers drop them.

[mkultra]

53. bingo. This lefty understands whats going on

and the criticism is not constructive, but it is infantile.

[niceypoo]

68. Sorry, not jumping on the RW bandwagon

[mkultra]

72. oh, you mean the orchestrated effort to undermine Obama?

me either.

[niceypoo]

97. No

I mean embracing lunatic RW memes, like the one this OP is espousing.

[niceypoo]

67. Obama has instutionalized the problem

There is no long game

[ClarkUSA]

4. Obama and his advisors play the long game, which few understand.

"Obamacare turns the insurers into public utilities, thus setting us on the road to single payer."

Love it. Bookmarked for future reference.

[vaberella]

7. Admittedly they do play a their game in a rather complicated way.

And it seems to me they were expecting a challenge and a win in the supreme court with the mandate. So this will be interesting to see.

[mkultra]

54. honestly, if he tried dumber strategies, he would have less detratctors here

[Mimosa]

73. People are dying from lack of care while limping down the Yellow Brick Road.

And even 2014 won't bring any miraculous systemic changes.

I hate it that some here have hero worship instead of empathy for the sick and needy. I guess you got yours.

[mkultra]

76. yup. and HCR moves to help those people

Yes. I have received benefits from HCR as have many people i know. My daughter who is married and out of the house is now covered by my insurance for the birth of her baby. people that have ongoing illnesses do not need ot be afraid ot get laid off or change jobs due to preexisting condition clauses.

He got as much out of the system as he could and i salute him for that. He made progress toward the betterment of all.

[Mimosa]

77. There are millions who can't afford premiums, hi deductibles, co-pays ...

There are millions who can't afford premiums, hi deductibles, co-pays and aren't poor enough for Medicaid. The premiums for those self-employed over 50 are prohibitive. And pre-existing conditions still keep *adults* from being able to change providers or policies.

There are the state pools (usually administered by the same old BlueCross ripoff). The premiums and deductibles are high.

The point is the President did NOT 'get as much as he could from the system.' He walled us into it. He met with insurance and pharma lobbyists in the White house but not with single payer proponents including his own Chicago doctor of 22 years! Look it up. WE got screwed on health care.

The public actually wants what Canada has!

[mkultra]

83. Thats another gish galloping half truth

When congress failed to make it work, he stepped in and worked a deal. He got everything he could and I for one am glad for what we got rather than wallow in the thought of what we could have if only there were no republicans standing in out way.

[Mimosa]

86. It's all about 'him'? What about US?

I'm serious. Health care access and treatment isn't about this party vs that party. It's the serious life or death issue to many of us.

uterine or breast cancer? What if you are married and hub earns 30,000 dollars a year? No children? You cannot get any government help if you have a roof over your head and a car. You are not busted broke. So what does a woman do in this shape?

I'll tell you what we do. Nothing. Chemotheraphy. We cannot afford it. We can't afford the $895 a month Blue cross insurance premiums. So many women let ourselves DIE. I saw this in new orleans quite a bit.

[mkultra]

95. reality disagrees with you

the world you want is one without political opponents.

[Mimosa]

87. You -god help you- are not a sick woman who can't get health care.

But you really don't care anyway. Party uber alles, right?

[Hippo_Tron]

96. The public has a serious cognitive dissonance issue

When you poll them and ask if they want universal health care, they will overwhelmingly tell you yes. When you ask them if we should have "socialized medicine" they will overwhelmingly say no.

[TheKentuckian]

5. The insurance cartel has been rendered a utility in only the most deranged and conservative and

deranged imaginations.

Imaginative but not in sync with reality or the language of the bill.

[burning rain]

48. Well, you know conservatives tend to be absolutists.

They like to yell "Taxation is theft!" and that modest regulation is tantamount to nationalizing this or that industry. Krauthammer's lunacy is of a piece with that sort of infantile screeching.

[vaberella]

6. But what you're suggesting will take an extraordinarily long time.

It's quite possible though, that I can't deny. I never really saw it on that angle. Definitely with the PO I felt that made the insurance company obsolete if it was passed. I hope we can revisit this when Obama wins the second term nomination. However, I must say that this will be a difficult road if it's truly the road the insurance company is going. If this doesn't hold up in the supreme court, the mandate--then it would be seen as a step back and it would make this ultimate end---an even longer process than I'd like to admit.

[phleshdef]

10. I think thats why its called a struggle.

But once the exchanges are in place and the new regulatory authority given to HHS is tested and exercised, I think people are going to finally see how strong a foundation this bill creates for a fair system that people can rely on to pay for their medical bills.

My view is that, if we wanted a single payer system sooner, we should have done it several decades ago before the health insurance companies had the chance to be come such a huge and ingrained part of the economy. Just like the banks, we let that beast get way too out of control and at the same time, way too fundamental. Its like not treating an otherwise treatable cancer early enough. The inoperable nature increases as it spreads and attaches to more vital areas of the body.

[vaberella]

12. True.

You're points are valid. It has gotten out of control and we'll have to deal with "low-hanging" fruit for a while. I get the feeling it will be under Obama though that we'll see more changes for the health care bill.

[louis-t]

8. What "massive new stimulus"?

[phleshdef]

11. Middle class tax breaks and unemployment ins. are and always will be demand side stimulus.

[martymar64]

34. The tax cuts have not stimulated anything in the past 10 years. Quit spreading supply sider lies.

[phleshdef]

40. So middle class people never spent any of that over the past 10 years?

We know the wealthy didn't use it to create jobs. But thats neither here nor there. We middle class people spend our money when we get it. Its an undisputable fact.

Tax cuts are not the most effective stimulus. No one is denying that. But middle class tax cuts are still stimulative nonetheless. And thats demand side, Keyenesian economics, whether you like it or not. You obviously don't actually know what a supply sider is or what any of those terms mean. But you think if you use them, you will make yourself look cool on the internet.

I guess you thought wrong.

[whosinpower]

51. The wealthy do not use their tax cuts to create jobs

That is not HERE NOR THERE. Not when the disparity between rich and poor have reached the levels that they do now.

Kicking the argument down the road for two years simply creates a two year status quo. NOTHING WILL CHANGE. The middle class will not spend any more than they do now - because they can't. The wealthy will not spend any more than they do now - because there is no incentive for them to do so. So - tell my oh wise one - where is the stimulus? 13 more months of unemployment insurance?

Understand this simple and well proven principle - when the wealthy are taxed at higher levels - they will do what they can to reduce their tax responsibilities - that means they will INVEST it in new business opportunities - which DOES CREATE JOBS, WHICH DOES STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. If Obama were savvy, he would offer twin opportunities - he would state that on ________date taxes for those earning more than $250 000 would be taxed on the excess at a rate of _______percent. At the same time, he would offer tax credits for investment in DOMESTIC AMERICA. Not multinationals, not foreign investment - HERE. So - they have a choice - they can let Uncle Sam have the money they sit on, or they can use it. There is no incentive for them to use it - that is precisely why they sit on it.....and we can clearly see what 10 years of this has done.

Financially it is more beneficial to them, the wealthy, to sit on the money, or pour it into multinationals that provide jobs overseas - because that is more profitable. And what we see is glaringly clear - the wealthy 2 percent have incomes that have increased and the wealth of the middle and lower classes have lessened. Those jobs have left the country. The short term benefit for the american consumer is that products are less costly - but the offset of this is reduced income to a vast majority of americans. Here we are. Those are FACTS. Begging the CEO's to hire more here is a joke. Whinning that the left are being purist is pathetic.

I guarentee you - if given the chance to invest in domestic America versus paying Uncle Sam - the wealthy hate taxes enough to do what they need to do to reinvigorate the american economy. And if you do not beleive me - you have only to look to history to find the truth.

Perhaps Obama will use this in 2012 as part of his campaign. Then again - if all his campaign funds come from that 2 percent - there is no INCENTIVE for him to do so. Perhaps the situation will get bad enough that he will be forced to.....but 2 years is a long time for the public to wait, try to feed their families, collect food stamps, dig through the sofa for coins.

[phleshdef]

64. My, what an unnecessary, foamy mouthed rant.

Its neither here nor there in regards to what I'm talking about PERIOD. I'm speaking strictly on middle class tax cuts, their stimulative effect and the fact that its a demand side approach. Its neither here nor there because I'm not talking about the tax cuts for the wealthy in that post. Its not a post about their tax cuts.

[whosinpower]

81. Ah reduced to insult

When silly little things like facts get in the way.

I already stated - middle class tax cuts will not be effective at stimulating the economy, short of a feel good, short term masturbative effect. And in the long term, its effect, its erosion is that the government must borrow money to fill the deficit WHICH STARVES PRIVATE ENTERPRISE FROM BORROWING FUNDS. In addition, it erodes the confidence of the US dollar - given that you are borrowing money with no way to pay it back....hoping for God himself to shine down on you, or that low paying service sector jobs will somehow provide the needed revenues to back up your debt.

Only when there is adequate incentive to invest in domestic America, will you see a robust return in jobs, and by extension tax revenues. And the guys who hold the keys to that have not been motivated to do so. You suggest that once "demand" goes up, jobs will return. Without some incentive to create jobs in America - the only jobs that WILL be created are overseas when that stimulus from the 2 percent payroll tax holiday hits the streets. And once that load is shot, you are right back to where you started except almost a trillion further in debt.




















But go ahead and jerk yourself off and exclaim how glorious it is.

[phleshdef]

89. Distributing wealth into the hands of middle class people ALWAYS has a stimulative effect.

The degree of stimulation is debatable, but to suggest that isn't stimulative at all flies in the face of simple common sense and reason, let alone basic demand side economics. But I don't need an economists opinion to tell me that. I know this because I am middle class. And if you give me a little bit of extra money with each paycheck I receive, I WILL spend it on something. That is a stimulative effect. It works exactly the same as unemployment insurance. When you give someone who isn't all ready wealthy a bit of money, they spend it. Usually its because they have to, and after that its because they want to. There is no argument in the world that exists to debate this dynamic.

The argument you are presenting seems pretty wack. By your logic, the government should not do one damn thing to stimulate the economy during a recession, because it will add to the deficit and thus they may have to borrow more money later. I reject that argument on its face. To hell with the deficit until unemployment is below 7% or better. I don't care about it and neither should you. If Americans can't work, if the economic ball isn't rolling in the right direction, then future deficits are the least of our problems. We might as well go ahead and borrow ourselves into the bankruptcy if everyone has a shitty quality of life anyway. We can't sit around and wait for "adequate incentives" to just come around. We have to keep money flowing until that happens. Tax cuts are not my preferred means of doing that and I never denied that more effective means exist. But if thats the only method we can get through the damn Senate, then thats what we will do.

And yes, once demand goes up, jobs will open up, right here, in America. Not every one of them will get outsourced. Outsourcing is a huge problem, but if it were to the extent that you are pretending, then I doubt I would even have a job right now and neither would many other people.

I'll ignore your obvious infatuations with my masturbation habits. Thats between me and my keyboard and its frankly none of your business.

[niceypoo]

69. You have absorbed the RW meme that 'tax cuts' are the answer to everything

The Democratic party has never bought into the RW 'tax cuts stimulate' meme. You are pushing GOP policy.

[underpants]

9. They should be public utilities - allowed a certain rate of return and then give it back to us...

or improve services

Dominion Virginia Power is allowed a 8 or 14 % return on investment (sorry I don't know the number) after that they have to rebate bills (which are in there from time to time). Whether it is 8 or 14 either way most businesses would love that kind of performance.

[David__77]

13. Under those terms, Bush was also a "man of the left."

Federalizing education, Medicare prescription coverage, etc. Just saying...

[treestar]

14. He might even have gotten public option with a Democratic Congress

Too bad that's off for at least two years.

[martymar64]

35. He had a Democratic Congress (BOTH Houses) and squandered it.

Where have you been? He and Rahm made backroom deals with Big Insurance and Big Pharma to kill single payer or any sort of public option at the beginning of negotiations, even going so far as having single payer advocates arrested.
He sold us out from the get-go.

With Democrats like that, who needs Republicans?

[girl gone mad]

15. This hasn't been the case with Romneycare.

Insurers simply exercised more control than ever by withdrawing from the marketplace when regulators rejected premium hikes.

Government doesn't always do a good job regulating utilities. Remember the fiasco that led to the Gray Davis recall?

We would probably be better off allowing people to continue to find solutions outside of the parasitic insurance industry, rather than forcing more participation in this dysfunctional system. It seems like that was already the direction we were headed in before the mandate, with more hospitals and doctors catering to uninsured and underinsured patients by offering reduced rates for cash payments and concierge style plans.

[phleshdef]

16. But if they are withdrawing from the marketplace at a national level....

...then where are they going? And why do we care?

[girl gone mad]

19. They don't have to go anywhere.

If they can't make the desired profits, they could simply go out of business. That's what happened with a few utilities in California.

You should care because this will drive costs up even further, as it has in Massachusetts.

[phleshdef]

21. Let them go out of business. The argument for a public system will increase 10 fold in power.

I don't think how something has worked out in state X is necessarily indicative of how it work out on a national level either. The policy might be similar, but a million other variables are completely different.

[girl gone mad]

23. And in the short term, how many will suffer?

How many will have to go without care while waiting for that public system to finally materialize?

The costs will also end up getting transferred onto the Federal budget, and in the austerity environment which currently dominates Washington, that means less money for other programs.

[martymar64]

36. And the companies left become monopolies. You know, too big to fail.

We need single payer now. People are tired of excuses.

[shimmergal]

56. If they would withdraw. . .

it might be the best solution. Whole industries have been known to vanish rapidly when the lack of need for their "product" became apparent. Many of us would cheer if this scenario happened to health insurance companies.

Unfortunately, the more likely result would be them withdrawing from "the individual market" only.
After all, they still manage to make money on group contracts with employers and on medicare supplemental plans.

But it would leave a public option as the only option, the option-of-last-resort for those Americans not covered by other plans.

At that point, if the people constructing such a plan have any sense, they'd institute a cramdown on medical pricing, starting with the principle that you can't charge one class of customer more than another for the same service. If it works for NYC nightclubs, it should work for our healthcare system too.

[Enrique]

17. Krauthammer is lying

he knows health reform does not turn insurers into public utilities. It's still a private system where poor people will get much worse care than rich people, and Krauthammer knows it.

[Sheepshank]

29. Silly assumption here

even in countries with socialized medicine, the rich get better, privitized and international health care options. The rich can get what they want and demand, regardless of where it is they have to go to get it.....duh!

[martymar64]

37. Difference is, in those othercountries, EVERYBODY gets health care. Not so here.

Here, no insurance is a death penalty for the poor or now, the rapidly disappearing middle class, or at the very least a sentence to pauperdom. If you've ever known somebody who has died because of lack of insurance, you'd realize how offensive that attitude is.

Keep defending the indefensible. This isn't about the rich getting health care,they are irrelevant to this argument. Thisis about poor people dying, like those transplant patients sentenced to die by Jan Brewer's death panel in Arizona. With Single Payer, none of this would be happening.

Single Payer now.

[GreenPartyVoter]

39. +1,000,000

[Mimosa]

78. martymar64, true Dems agree with you. n/t

[Exilednight]

20. If this were true, which it's not, then this bill would of included a provision

that forced health care insurance companies to fall under antitrust laws, which it doesn't and they don't.

Anyone who believes this does not comprehend how health care companies are regulated.

[golfguru]

22. Main reasons why the HCR bill sucks...

For profit private insurers (FPPI) get a gift of millions of additional paying
customers with mandates.

There is not a single restraint on premium hikes by FPPI in the bill.
The FPPI's are free to increase your premiums as high as necessary until
their profit goals are met.

The HCR bill prohibits drug importation! WOW what a bonanza for big pharma!
Drug importation clause would have saved millions to consumers.

No competition to FPPI from PUBLIC OPTION to keep rate hikes under control.
This was the only effective means of restricting run away rate hikes.

Competition to FPPI from across the state lines by other FPPI's is prohibited.
So each state has it's FPPI's operating as monopolies without outside competition.

Nothing in the HCR bill to restrain frivolous malpractice suits which end up
costing all consumers of health care more.

To be sure there are some very good things in the bill such as no cancellations
and no rejections. However both of these are NOT mutually exclusive with the
above listed items now missing from the bill.

[dflprincess]

30. The biggest reason the "health care" bill sucks is that

it mandates we continue to buy the same crappy insurance from the same old crooks, but does nothing to guarantee access to care.

And lets not forget, Obama refused to even discuss single payer so let's not pretend he has any real interst in that being his "end game". Lyndon Johnson thought the Medicare bill would open the door to universal access to care - I imagine he'd be shocked if he knew a Democratic president gave the country to the for profit insurers and has the nerve to call it "reform".

[Chan790]

52. Sorry, as soon as you advocated tort-reform 2nd paragraph from the bottom...

you outed yourself as supporting the mother of all RW agenda items.

Those "frivolous" malpractice (and all such civil-suits initiated by "trial-lawyers" including class-action) suits act directly and simply to prevent doctors, corporations and insurers from being able to factor in ineptitude and malfeasance as "costs of doing business".

There is a reason why even "bad Democrats" will compromise away just about anything and screw any constituency but refuse to put that on the table. It's the *big fucking final thing*, if the GOP ever gets that, it's over. Pack up the tent, shoot the Democratic Donkey, sit down where you stand and light a cig and wait for the atomic blast, end of the Democratic Party over. Like forever and ever over for the middle-class, it's the last greased step before the long slide to permanent two-class serfdom.

The second you advocate tort-reform or malpractice-reform you are automatically-wrong and invalidate any merit-points you might have made. If you really feel that way...I just don't see how anybody could feel that way and not be to the extreme oligarchic far-right.

[golfguru]

60. US mal-practice suit cost is 25 times those in UK

Is that because US doctors are 25 times more incompetent than in United Kingdom?

Nope, simple reason is in UK if you lose the lawsuit, YOU PAY for
the defending doctor's/hospital's legal and court costs.
Those who ignore actual results are doomed to fall into abyss.

Why you want to protect multi-millionaire trial lawyers?
I am more for protecting every doctor who is trying his/her best to
help patients. You are for protecting the multi-millionaire trial lawyers.
These trial lawyers in US have a win-win situation. If they lose the
lawsuit, only thing they lose is their time. If they win, they can keep a big
chunk of multi-million dollar awards.

That outs you as a sell out to the trial-lawyer-lobby.

If a genuine mal-practice has taken place then any good lawyer will be quite
willing to take the case if he is convinced of a win. This is different than
tort reform where they want to limit awards. If a genuine mal-practice has
occurred then there should be no artificial limit is what I think.

Listen pal, I am medicare age. I tell it like I see it. Sorry if I don't
sound like left wing or right wing. I am just my own-common-sense-wing.

[Chan790]

61. "the trial-lawyer-lobby."

Yup, that's a clincher there. Going to try this one time:

Tort-reform (inclusive of malpractice reform) is the mother of all corporatist RW agenda items. It might actually be the one thing someone cannot support and still be a Democrat...it affects every last single Democratic ideal and issue to our massive detriment in myriad ways. Entire books have been written on the subject. It's not even a liberal thing, it's strictly an anti-middle class, anti-people, anti-environment, anti-victim pro-big-business thing. It's all about putting a cost-limit on incorporated evil for the business lobby and USCoC so they can factor it in as a cost of business allowing them to effectively ignore laws that might interfere with their greed and a tool to discourage legitimate lawsuits.

Further, malpractice lawsuits do not actually drive up health-care costs, that's just a GOP talking point...one they push because they need to achieve tort-reform in order to completely and finally legally-disenfranchise the American people to the benefit of their corporate masters. They've said it enough times that you've started to believe it. Problem is, there is no actual problem there to fix...other than the attainment of the RW agenda item. They've sold you their goal and told you it's the solution to a problem that doesn't exist. (Totally buy some Gingrich brand "bonafied" snake oil though, it'll keep the warlocks from turning your loved ones into frogerines and jabberwocky.)

We don't need a solution to an imaginary problem created by RW strategists to push their agenda.

[golfguru]

74. I am for doctors, you are for mal-practice trial lawyers

I will back the doctors whom I need to keep me healthy in my retirement,
you can back the mal-practice trial lawyers who drive up my cost because
my doctor has to pay exorbitant insurance rates for mal-practice.

Whatever! Be a sell out to the trial-lawyers lobby and enjoy your retirement
should you be so lucky to get there.

[TheKentuckian]

84. No, it is probably very closely associated with having a NHS

You enter a system where you agree to certain limits on liability and you are bringing suit against the state rather than an entity or individual in pursuit of profit.

The size of the suits is not really comparable. In America money is justice and compensation (along with about everything else) and acts as the only incentive for businesses to operate morally and reasonably. Here it is crucial that awards be enough to break above the background noise of "the cost of doing business". Failure to do so leads to great and purposeful negligence and willful malpractice in pursuit of a better bottom line.

"Tort Reform" in a profit based system is a pleasant walk to the slaughter house because all due diligence and care ends at the point that it costs more money to provide such essentials.

[BeFree]

25. The HCIRB may or may not work

Yep, the health care industry repair bill HCIRB may save the insurers asses, it may not.

This tiny step to reform has to be followed with more and better, and that will not happen in at
least two years now. So, we are still screwed. We're a long way from having proper, sound and sustainable health care.

So, what's really dumb, is that our efforts to get the best are berated at every step forward.
I can see Obama giving us a wedgie - that's politics, but to see some here get on our asses because
we ain't even yet close to the right thing, is, well, just dumb.

[whosinpower]

26. Krauthammer is an idiot

He paints the right wing republican goals as being centrist and moderate....NO FRIGGIN WAY!

There is no way in hell that a mandate that forces americans to buy private health insurance - WILL EVER MORPH ITS WAY TO UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.

What are you guys smoking? That you eagerly lap it up is.....rather.....pathetic, so eager you are to defend Obama.

Explain it to me in a way a 6 year old would understand - how does FORCING someone to buy PRIVATE INSURANCE even if they cannot afford it.....how does that make those private insurance companies - UTILITIES.....and how does that evolve into universal healthcare? Because right wing Krauthammer knows what buttons to push to shut the naysayers up?

It would be as if FDR said that in order to pass Social Security - every single working American MUST INVEST IN THE STOCK MARKET OR FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES.....and somehow THAT would evolve in a long and convoluted way into Social Security.

[phleshdef]

27. I all ready explained that, but you were too busy nearly choking to death on your own vitriol.

By government requiring everyone to be insured, its inherently giving itself a responsibility that will ultimately force it to make sure everyone is insured. And the regulatory framework created by this bill could very easily be used to manipulate the nature of insurance companies into something more like a utility company.

I really don't care if you agree or not. You obviously aren't interested in the long view and that is what my OP is mostly about.

[martymar64]

38. Those are enormous leaps of faith you are making

Trouble is, how many people will die while you await your fantasy to come true?

[phleshdef]

41. Not nearly as many as those that are fantasizing about single payer coming anytime sooner.

[martymar64]

43. Especially since Obama would fight it will all his being

He is big Health and Big Pharma's BFF.

Can't have anything that will actually benefit real people and not just the rich.

[whosinpower]

47. Keep drinking that kool aid

Your arguement is weak and disingenuous. By making it AGAINST THE LAW not to have insurance will not force governemnt to do anything remotely what you are suggesting and here is the key that eveyrone glosses over = IT WILL NOT FORCE HEALTHCARE COSTS TO BE MORE AFFORDABLE.

You are facing a situation that in all accounts resembles 1928. Over 80 percent of the wealth in America is generated by 2 percent of the population. Most bankruptcies in America arise from failure to pay HEALTH CARE BILLS - AND THOSE ARE WITH FUCKING INSURANCE!

Here is the only situation that would actually agree with your brilliant assessment. Have no health insurance and get cancer. Go to jail because you have no health insurance....would government then be forced to provide you with the healthcare you need? WOULD IT? Or would you just need to hurry up and die?

Rightwing Krauthammer thinks this is simply brilliant.

[Monk06]

31. Krauthammer either does not understand the Canadian system or he is being disingenuous.

The insurance companies are disallowed by law from
offering health insurance in Canada and have been since
1964. They can offer supplementary or travel insurance,
but may not offer insurance for basic health care.

Doctors bill the Ministry of Health of their respective
Provinces not insurance companies and they are guaranteed
payment according to payment schedules that they negotiate
with government.

This is nothing like the dog's breakfast the right calls
Obama care. You will never see single payer nationally
in the US.

[Crunchy Frog]

50. Disingenuous is my vote.

[martymar64]

32. Obama and the Democrats should begin the push for singlepayer now.

The insurance companies need to either play ball and relax their terms and conditions for providing coverage or have their corporate charters revoked.

Insurance companies are leeches sucking literally the life blood out of every American and they need to be destroyed outright as an industry.

[jmowreader]

42. The RW has a BIG problem concerning the stimulus

It is not that the stimulus "failed." I don't think it actually did--it got quite a few people working, and it fixed a shitload of Reagan Road. (This is road that's been neglected until the chuckholes are so big you can get all four wheels in.)

The reality is, the job-creating effects of the Obama stimulus were not able to override the job-destroying effects of the Bush 43 depression.

[area51]

44. I'd suggest

that you and Krauthammer read T.R. Reid's The Healing of America. There is no way that forcing individual citizens to buy health insurance is going to lead to universal health care/a right to health care.

[harun]

45. Lies

[old mark]

46. Now, there's a great idea!......nt

[Crunchy Frog]

49. Krauthammer is so full of shit

that if you stuck a pin in him it would create a national catastrophe. It's really grasping at straws to use quotes from him to try to make current political circumstances look more palatable.

Oh, and there are numerous countries that have universal healthcare that's based on multiple private insurance companies rather than single payer. "Obamacare" leading inexorably toward a Canadian style single payer system is both a right wing and increasingly a left wing myth.

[ProudDad]

71. "Sick Around the World" is a good one to watch...

it proves your point... :hi:

I use "single-payer" as a shorthand version of "Universal, Comprehensive Health Care" vs. the current USAmerican "for-profit Sick Care system"...

The one thing in common in all of the the countries with comprehensive and effective Health Care systems is that "profit" is severely limited (as in Germany, France, Switzerland, Japan) or outlawed (as in Britain, Canada, Korea, Taiwan) in the provision of basic, Comprehensive and Universal Health Care...

The "Health Insurance Corporation and Big PhRMA Stimulus Act of 2010" ain't even headed in that direction!


On Edit: Indeed, kraut-hummer is now and has ever been full of shit! He's a pristine example of a stopped clock that's NEVER right...

[Crunchy Frog]

85. Yes, I've seen it. It's an excellent documentary.

The other thing that these countries with universal comprehensive health care have in common is that insurance companies and medical providers are regulated to within an inch of their lives. They are regulated at a level that would never be acceptable in corporate ruled America.

"Kraut-hummer". That's a nice name for him. I've always just called him "Chuckie". :hi:

Not only is he never right, he is a liar, a manipulator, an incredible asshole, and just downright evil. :)

[Donnachaidh]

55. wow - what a pantload of spin

Turns privately held companies into public utilities? That's true only if you are smoking the right sort of CRACK to think such nonsense.....

:wow: :eyes:

[Unvanguard]

58. He has a point. Absent Republican success in the next four years or so

health care reform is only going to get stronger.

[Milo_Bloom]

59. You mean like the utility companies that raped California a few years back?

Oh boy... I can't wait!

[and-justice-for-all]

62. WooHoo!!! Single Payer Baby, bring it on!!! nt

:applause:

[ibegurpard]

63. keep dreaming

[niceypoo]

66. It's called privatization

It has destroyed almost every economy in Latin America

[ProudDad]

70. Krauthammer has been CONSISTENTLY WRONG forever

and he's wrong on this one too...

As are those hoping that somehow a give-away to the FOR-PROFIT health INSURANCE and drug corporations will morph into a Universal, Comprehensive, non-profit Health Care System, you know, the kind that ALL of the rest of the industrialized world ALREADY HAS...

The bill places the financing of private, for-profit sick care on the backs of employers, employees and individual persons when the only real solution for effective and comprehensive Health Care is to TAKE THE PROFIT OUT OF IT!!!

That execrable POS of a bill will NOT do that and as a consequence will NOT control costs nor provide Universal, Comprehensive care...

[Mimosa]

75. ^ True! K-Hammer & Kristol are the same in that way: always wrong. ^ n/t

[craigmatic]

80. I see it this way, if the insurance companies have to cover everyone then they're

going to eventually have to drop their prices or the government is going to have to step in and help people pay for it. That's what Obama was betting on. The question is who is going to be the person to step in and make them do the obvious? If it's Obama then he better win back the house in 2012 as well as get elected if not it's going to be up to big pharma and big insurance to bring the repigs to heel. They'll never repeal the part of the law that makes everyone have to buy insurance.

[Mimosa]

88. What about the WOMEN?

Women get sick.We can't get treatment for cancer , heart disease, stroke, whatever, IF we are not on Medicaid or in the upper middle class.

I think I am going to leave Democratic Underground because it's as if the mindset here is like that of REPUBLICAN/Libertarian/Freepers.


There are so many here who don't even care about the poor and unemployed. Too many are playing games about our tean vs theirs. Too many claim to be democrats but you're not like FDR would even know you. But Reagan would.

[ProudDad]

91. It's not even close to how it was in the early 2000s...

There is so many republican-lite here it makes the gorge rise... :puke:

[Mimosa]

99. ProudDad, that's considered GOOD!

Supposedly if the Dem Party attracts people from the Republican party, that's a good thing. Never mind that they drag us rightwards. At least... what can i say?

[ProudDad]

90. They will pick option #2...

Force the governments (state and fed) and individuals to pay and pay and pay until we go bankrupt...

there should be NO profit allowed in Health Care Financing!

[Juche]

92. Health reform moved the overton window to the left, so in the regards yeah

The concept that the gov has a responsibility to provide health care to everyone is going from a 'controversial' idea to a more or less accepted one. I don't think that means we will get single payer anytime soon, esp considering how most of our long term deficits are health care related.

It may result in more gov. intervention in promoting cost cutting and productivity increases in health care.

[Marr]

93. What a ridiculous argument. Since when is Charles fucking Krauthammer "perceptive"?

He's a conservative ideologue who's been consistently wrong on every major issue for years. He's wrong because he's always selling something, not describing reality.

The most interesting thing I've learned from this thread is that Obama loyalists will openly praise anyone, so long as they're saying something that makes the Big Guy look good.

[Mimosa]

100. Ugly truth: whatever Krauthammer wants, Democratic majority has delivered.

Why are we still killing people and taking casualties in an illegal war which Cheney, Krauthammer and neo-cons (Wolfowitz, etc) wanted the USA to perpetrate?

[mmonk]

94. Not unless the Republicans he borrowed from and insurance company

lobbyists in on writing it were shooting for single payer as well.

[moondust]

98. Not gonna happen in a plutocracy. n/t