Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAs moderator of Thursday's Democratic Presidential debate, here's a follow-up question: Do you think your plan is better than Medicare-For-All, or do you fear being attacked as an extremist by Republicans, big insurance, and big pharma and so propose a less effective plan as more politically pragmatic?
The leading Democratic candidates--Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama-- criticize America's broken health care system and call for fundamental change with great rhetorical flair. But when it comes to proposing the most effective plan for change--Medicare-For All-- they don't show an audacity of hope. They show a paucity of courage.
Obama's rhetoric can soar: "The times has come for universal health care in America...Plans that tinker and halfway measures belong to yesterday...[It's] wrong when businesses have to layoff one employee because they can't afford the health care of another. Wrong when a parent cannot take a sick child to the doctor because they cannot afford the bill that comes with it. Wrong when 46 million Americans have no health care at all. In a country that spends more on health care than any other nation on Earth, it's just wrong." Or, as John Edwards proclaims, "We put more money into health care than any country in the industrialized world and we get one of the worst products out in the other end."
Obama, Edwards and Clinton are great at denouncing the problem. But they are timid when suggesting the solution. As with Hillary Clinton's failed 1993 health care plan, out of fear of being accused by opponents of advocating socialized medicine, Obama's and Edward's plans try to piece together a patchwork of employer plans, private insurance, new government regulations, subsidies and tax credits which is over-complicated, only goes part way towards solving the problem, and in Obama's case does not even guarantee universal coverage. Of course as in 1993, such caution will not keep Republicans and their corporate lobbyist cronies from attacking these plans. The day after Obama announced his plan, Rudolph Guliani denounced it as "socialized medicine."
Hillary's 1993 plan and Obama's and Edward's 2007 plans all try to build reform on top of the twin pillars of the current flawed American health care system--private insurance and employer-provided benefits--while attempting to fill in the cracks. The problem is that these twin pillars are rotting from their foundations and any reform built on them is likely to collapse.
The first pillar of the system--private insurance--is an inherently flawed means of providing health care. First, the incentive of a private insurance company is to find ways to deny needed care--the less care provided for the same premiums, the higher the profits and the bigger the salaries and bonuses of their top executives. So private health insurance companies pay huge staffs to review claims and deny coverage. Michael Moore's "Sicko" shows horrifying examples of people who actually have health insurance coverage but suffer from lack of care because insurance companies wrongly denied their claim, and presents eloquent testimony from former insurance company employees about how they were promoted and award bonuses for finding ways to reject coverage.
Second, private health insurance involves a colossal waste of money. Nearly 1/3 of private health insurance premiums go to administrative costs of underwriting (i.e. turning down insurance applications from consumers who might actually need to use their insurance), claims processing (i.e. denying as many claims as possible), marketing and advertising, plus shareholder profits and multi-million dollar executive salaries and bonuses. By contrast, Medicare's administrative run approximately 2-3% of costs. At the same time, to deal with numerous different insurance companies and their varying claims procedures, doctors and hospitals have to employ large staffs, not to provide care, but just to process insurance claims. Approximately 20% of doctor's income goes to the overhead of processing insurance. It has been estimated that approximately $350 billion a year of health care dollars goes to administrative costs. Saving most of these costs alone could pay to insure the tens of millions of uninsured Americans in a Medicare--For-All system.
Moreover, the second pillar of the system--employer-provided health insurance--is collapsing. No less a businessman than the chairman of Ford Motor Company stated that employee health costs are "the biggest issue on our plate that we can't solve. Health care is out of control. It's a system that's broke."
Every year, fewer and fewer employers offer health insurance. Increasingly, most labor/ management disputes are less about wages and working conditions than about health care coverage, as American companies struggle to remain competitive in the world market by reducing benefits, raising deductibles, and increasing employee's share of premiums. Average health care costs run 7-10% of wages, putting a tremendous burden on American companies who must complete with companies from almost all the other capitalist democracies where health care is provided by the government, not to mention emerging economies like Taiwan which instituted single payer health care a decade ago.
The Big Three automakers issued an incredible statement recently that "The [Canadian] public health-care system reduces total labor costs for automobile manufacturing firms, compared to the cost of equivalent private insurance services purchased by U.S. based automakers; these health insurance savings can amount to several dollars per hour of labor worked. Publicly-funded health care thus accounts for a significant portion of Canada's overall labor cost advantage in auto assembly, versus the U.S., which in turn has been a significant factor in maintaining and attracting new auto investment to Canada. Recently, Toyota cited the savings in health care costs as the primary reason for deciding to open a new auto plant in Canada rather than the U.S.
The societal costs of a health care system built on private insurance and employer-paid premiums is 49 million uninsured and an equal number of underinsured, rightful insurance claims going unpaid, $350 billion dollars a year in wasted costs, a reduction in America's economic competitiveness, and the loss of American jobs. Yet this is the rotten system on which Obama, Edwards and Clinton want to build their reforms. As one blog stated, Obama's plan "offers just enough federal bureaucracy for the GOP to caricature, just enough private insurance involvement to annoy liberals and just enough confusion to keep everyone else from knowing just what to think." In other words, in 2007, political timidity is no more a guarantee of success than it was in 1993.
The type of hybrid private/public health care patchwork health reform proposed by Obama, Edwards, and Clinton is a vast, untried social experiment which has never been proven to work anywhere in the world. The type of health care program that works--a single payer government run service--has already proven itself in virtually every other capitalist democracy. The US spends twice as much per capita on health care as Britain, France or Canada, yet America ranks only 39th in the world in the health of our people. Life expectancy is shorter and infant mortality higher in the US than in most other wealthy countries.
If the leading Democratic Presidential contenders think that by avoiding proposals for a single payer system they will somehow neutralize the opposition to reform and make their proposals more appealing, they are kidding themselves. It didn't work for Hillary in 1993 and it won't work now. It only makes their proposals more complicated and harder to explain to voters. Besides its inherent virtues, a single payer healthcare system is easy to explain--Just like social security (and Medicare of those over 65), every American is automatically enrolled and covered by insurance and every American can choose his or her own doctor. Short, simple and sweet.
Moreover, polls show that Americans are ready to accept single payer health insurance. A recent poll by the Pubic Policy Institute of California found that "by a two-to-one margin, most prefer 'a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by the taxpayers' nationally to 'the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance' The preference here is a descriptor of what is known as 'single payer.'"
If the Democrats win the Presidency and increase their control of Congress in 2008, there will be one chance to reform health care in America. Whatever system is then put in place, there will likely not be another chance at fundamental reform for another thirty years. Obama's, Edward's and Clinton's timid half-way measures are as likely to be attacked by Republicans, big pharma and the insurance industry as a Medicare-For-All. Why not do it right the first time?
Miles Mogulescu is an entertainment attorney and social justice advocate.
© 2007 Huffington Post
43 Comments so far
Show AllRegardless of Mike Gravel's chances for nomination or presidency, his idea of a National Initiative for Democracy is the only way I can see to enable the will of the people and bypass entrenched corporate-political power. It takes only a little time to read through its well thought out provisions at www.nationalinitiative.com At this time 20 states and Switzerland enjoy this direct empowerment of citizens. It works very well with very few and correctable errors. Speak for yourselves! Vote for the National Initiative! Just think: universal health care, universal voting rights and procedures, fair and transparent taxes... All's you gotta do is vote. And pass it on to everyone you know because 55 million votes are needed.
Thanks Kathyodat. I kind of suspected there was something "fishy" with his plan and your response will prompt me to investigate further with appropriate skepticism.
SteveMick, I missed the first Dem debate, but I read that Dennis Kucinich showed how Edwards' public/private plan was tilted to favor the insurance industry and make Medicare impractical - sort of like the Medicare part D plan today. I'm not surprised. If Clinton and Obama are corporate flacks ($25 million war chests), Edwards is corporate-lite ($9 million). It's easy enough to do if you restrict Medicare's options as the drug bill does.
The only realistic answer is HR637, Medicare For All.
Thanks to AnnEMalone for her warning about the truth behind "universal coverage" in Massachussetts. Those same interests will soon be coming to a state legislature near you (wherevever you may be). I am letting my representatives know that I will refuse to comply with any attempt to force me to buy health insurance, and encourage everyone to brush up on the venerated American tradition of civil disobedience. Otherwise we'll ALL be steamrolled.
Forgive me as I reveal my ignorance but is it really correct to say Edwards does not favor single payer health insurance? My take on his "marketplace" idea was that it was a clever way of turning the Repug talking point that private insurance can do the job more efficiently on its head. It seemed obvious to me that almost everyone would choose Medicare since it would cost less than competing private insurance companies.
Anybody who doesn't support health care for all the people of this country is a damn extremist, and it has to be publicly, and that is federally funded, program. This is what the US Congress including all the hypocrites who say they're against health care for all, get.
Now let's just get a nobody but Kucinich movement started to win the presidency in a landslide, as he's the only one backing health care for all and as a right, which in any civilized country it is. The legislative branch of the US Government shouldn't be a problem either, ya'll.
"glide625 June 27th, 2007 12:40 pm
This is a good article. Although most probably don’t really care to consider such items, the question that has puzzled me is that if we went to a single payer system, how many insurance companies would be put out of business and how many employess would lose their jobs? Where would all those people go and what would they do for a living? It’s like the “abolish the IRS†and go to a national sales tax. What would happen to millions of tax preparers, accountants, CPA’s, office clerks, etc. It’s made me wonder if perhaps the people behind the empty suits that run for president haven’t advised them that they can’t really “promise†a single payer health care system because they know it would create an economic shock to the economy that would take years to work out of?"
Gee, wonder why they couldn't have considered that before they sent millions of manufacturing jobs overseas, started flooding the country with H1-B's to take the high tech work and illegal aliens to do the menial work, in addition to outsourcing whatever they couldn't bring in.
Lobo Gris
I hope you Americans realise that you have absolutely NO chance of EVER having a single payer system, and might as well give up trying to achieve it. Big Pharma and your HMOs will never let it happen, and they now have such a great influence, primarily because you the people voted for the criminals who allowed it to be instated as it is now.
I'm not saying give up on trying to rework your healthcare system, by all means you HAVE TO! (to quote Mrs. Lovejoy: "Oh will someone please think of the childen!") But to think you will ever have one modeled on Canada's, France's or ours (Australian) is to delude yourselves immensely.
Start small, think small, then get increasingly larger ideas rolling. Good luck to you all and I hope I am wrong, for your sake.
Thank you, AnnEMalone, I'm planning on wearing my SiCKO scrub to the opening of SiCKO in Eugene, and you've given me some talking points in addition to the flyers I'm planning to pass out to theatregoers.
I especially liked this one:
Should healthcare be for people and their communities, or for corporations and their shareholders to make a profit?
I also like the term Dennis Kucinich uses, Medicare For All
I read about Massachusetts, didn't know it had already gone through, it sounds frightful.
I'm copying your post for further study.
Kathy Jones, RN
Thank you Miles and the many excellent commentors on this post - so many important points are made that help to connect the dots for a richer understanding of why that is essential to leading us to the successful "How", as in how to actually acheive the changes we so desperately need.
I suggest that when we talk to others about the healhtcare reform issue and explain that Medicare For All is the only workable solution to fix the interrelated crises in access, cost and quality of care, let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be.
Ask people to not be afraid to think for themselves and to use common sense; it really does largely come down to this question:
Should healthcare be for people and their communities, or for corporations and their shareholders to make a profit?
The rest flows rather naturally from how you answer that fundamental question.
Follow the money trail and connect the dots, but know that you'll have to dig deeper than the misleading MSM "coverage" to get to the facts. These include the infuriating truth that in Massachusetts our recent "groundbreaking reform" law is fake reform. The law was largely concocted by the insurance industry and Mitt Romney, with the help of the Heritage Foundation. The momentum these entities created, combined with the insidious control of the political process by monied interests (read "healthcare industry as a tope contender)steamrolled over the Dems in the state who went along with this POS faux reform law that forces people to buy expensive shoddy insurance products under threat of financial penalty by the state.
Activists here in Mass. -- and every place in the nation -- are getting bulldozed by the hc industry with the assistance of many co-opted "advocacy groups" that are funded by the hc industry!!! Herein Mass. it is "Health Care For All MA" with their $2Mil annual budget, much of it coming from BCBS, HMO's and hospital chains. Ughhh.
Whenever you see the word "Consumer", that should send up a red flag to dig a little deeper and see who funds these groups which will tell you whose side they are really on. Like check out the Families USA website. Do you see "single payer" or "Medicare For All" anywhere? I couldn't find it. What I did find are more "consumer" references than I could count.
Sick people aren't consumers, they are people in need of care. And well people need health promotion information, resources and ongoing support, not "consumerism".
If you're not familiar with it already, check out Ezra Klein's "The Health of Nations" on TPR online for useful models that describe how a number of civilized industrialized countries have dealt with answering the fundamental question of: Should healthcare be treated as human right and a public good or as a commodity in the marketplace?.
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/health_of_nations/index.html
in solidarity and in health, AnnEMalone, RN
"working for health and social justice for all"
To Miles Mogulescu: Ask Tavis Smiley how he's able to rationalize promoting Mal-Wart by accepting their sponsorship.
Nobody opposes a single payer system unless they are being paid to do so
Comments on single payer systems based on experience in the US, UK and Canada plus other observations from the internet.
The three systems I have first and second hand experience with are the US, UK, and Canada. My son studied in England for five years and his wife has lived there most of her life. He needed arthroscopic knee surgery to remove some cartilage. Under their national system he would have waited about three months, so he went the private route. The whole shmear, workup, surgery, hospitalization and physical therapy cost $US 2000. That wouldn't have happened in the US because here there is no other alternative, but it shows you what medical care can cost if the private system really has to compete, not the pseudocompetition that we have now.
His wife loves the system and has no complaints whatsoever with any of the care she has had while growing up. Once a doctor thought he had detected a heart problem and she was being worked on in the hospital within an hour. In the US they wouldn't have been able to find an emergency room available in that time.
She is now doing a postdoc in Canada and has only one experience with their system as a result of a bike accident. She was completely satisfied and it didn't cost her anything.
Everyone knows what the US is like. My experience is taking another son to the emergency room from a skating accident and waiting several hours while he bled all over the place. And another occasion when I needed a complete workup for intestinal bleeding. I went to the local hospital for the tests and my insurance company (AIG) refused to pay. They kept asking me the dates of my hospitalization and I kept telling them that I wasn't hospitalized, that the expenses were for diagnostic work. They never responded and I never was compensated. This is what is meant by hiring people to not pay claims.
The idea that the healthcare system is "broken" is patently absurd. It serves the interests of the ruling class very well indeed. The reservoir of cash called insurance companies is by far the biggest Wall Street slush fund and they will never give that up. Well, maybe at gunpoint.
Just FYI: If anyone's interested in sending a message to Tavis Smiley before the so-called "debate," you can write to him at www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/ and encourage him to press the candidates--Kucinich excepted--about their failure to support single-payer universal healthcare. If he fails to hold their feet to the fire on this, I'd recommend writing to him afterward to express your displeasure. Build the movement!
CanuckChuck, thanks for your post, and in answer to your question, because the corporations have America under their thumb, and watch out, Canada is in their gunsights.
To change the system of corporate health care will take more than a narrow marginal gain in congress.
Additionally, it will take a lot of public support. Many people do not even know what quality health care is or how thier lives are compromised by this system.
CanuckChuck that is very interesting information! Thank you for post it.
All contendors are "serious;" otherwise, why contend? I think the answer lies in the agenda of Huffington Post, which on occasion, as this is, shows its anti-progressiveness.
Clearly, when one soberly looks at all the faults and troubles besetting the country and world, the only candidate with detailed programs addressing those ills is Kucinich. So one must wonder at the agenda of a supoposedly "left" and rather loud blogosphere voice that deliberately excludes Kucinich and his vastly superior plans.
I remember how the major medias kept ignoring Howard Dean during the last big whoop...then, reality, Dean was the leading contender, contrary to the "experts" on teevee. Of course, because he was a problem solver and leader, the media set about attacking him.
Kucinich, Nader, and probably Gravel have proven they're problem solvers, yet, not a wink or a nod to these political leaders who've already proven their worth in regards social issues. Gimme a break!
The reason Kuchinich isn't mentioned in this article is that no one is taking him as a SERIOUS contender for the nomination. Now, I can put a sign in my yard for the man, which in my neighborhood wouldn't draw much attention. Or, I could contribute to his campaign. Or I could...
what? If he doesn't sell out to special interest or the corporate lobbyists who actually RUN America, how the hell is he ever going to get nominated in the most cosmic greed fest known to man, the Democratic Convention? (Or it's evil twin, the Republican Convention) See folks, here's the problem. NOBODY in the political system in the nation
GIVES a shit what you, I or anyone else thinks or wants anymore. The question isn't who to elect. The question is HOW the hell you get the Governments attention AT ALL. As far as I'm concerned, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards might as well go play with themselves. I'm voting for Moe Howard in 2008!
Whatever one thinks of Dennis Kucinich (and I am a Kucinich supporter), my point was simply that here Mr. Mogulescu writes an article about how the "leading Democratic candidates" don't support single-payer "Medicare For All", yet he fails to even MENTION Democratic candidate Kucinich, who has made single-payer "Medicare For All" (and that's the exact phrase that Kucinich uses) a cornerstone of his campaign.
That's just a bizarre omission.
The question that Mr. Mogulescu wants Tavis Smiley to ask Clinton, Obama and Edwards should be rephrased as follows: "Do you think your plan is better than the Medicare-For-All plan THAT YOUR FELLOW DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE REP. DENNIS KUCINICH PROPOSES, or do you fear being attacked as an extremist by Republicans, big insurance, and big pharma and so propose a less effective plan as more politically pragmatic?"
Sorry, but I have to re-post this in the hopes that Tavis will not ignore the 300-lb Gorilla in the room. This may be fantasy, but one can hope....
Tavis Smiley: Senator Clinton (or insert candidate name here), this is a two part question: First, do you accept campaign contributions from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries? Second, why do you feel that it is morally justifiable for insurance companies to make huge profits off the sick and dying while providing no service in return but layer after layer of bureaucracy and interference between healthcare providers and their patients, especially in the areas of treatment options and medications?
Senator Clinton (or insert candidate name here): Well …
Single payer will NOT eliminate insurance companies. They will continue to write policies for Home, Fire, Theft, Auto, Shipping, etc; they just won't be writing health insurance policies anymore! And on what grounds can big Pharma oppose single payer? I would expect hospitals and medical practitioners to welcome a system that will provide them with more opportunity/more clients/more income/more jobs as tens of millions jump at the chance to finally visit a doctor, dentist or other medical professional. With more people being examined/diagnosed, more perscriptions will be written and drugs sold leading to an increase in big Pharma's bottom line.
Disclaimer: I've never liked insurance companies based upon the overwhelming amount of fraud they commit yearly and the fact that they are only interested in your money, not your wellbeing--a feeling I suspect is shared by a large majority.
Dennis Kucinich has real integrity, and a 40-yr political record of standing up to corporate interests to defend the public interest. Check it out, starting with saving public power when he was mayor of Cleveland. Based on his record and personal integrity, I have no doubt he would not just talk about single-payer health care, he would get it for us.
I'd like to put to bed this criticism that luckylefty and others keep putting forward, that Kucinich essentially sold out at the Dem convention in '04 by supporting Kerry in the 11th hour.
I was at that convention, and I observed Kucinich's meeting with his delegates where, after hearing their heart-felt, passionate arguments, he released them to vote their conscience on the convention floor, rather than require them to support Kerry. Kucinich was under enormous pressure from the Kerry campaign to instruct his delegates to "show unity" and vote Kerry on the floor, and he did not.
Kucinich fought to the bitter end and simply didn't have enough delegates to secure the nomination.
Yes, ultimately he chose to throw his support to Kerry, because he thought Kerry was better than Bush. Maybe that was the wrong move, but I don't think it's evidence of a lack of integrity. At some point all the truly progressive Democrats may have to ask themselves if they can stay in an increasingly corporate party, but that's another discussion.
Oh, and p.s: Kucinich's new wife may be really good looking, but she's certainly no dummy. I don't think it's fair to call her a "trophy wife".
"And the Democratic Party pretty much treats him the same way."
Which is why I'm dumbfounded at this point as to why he's still a member of this pro-war, pro-corporate party? Its as if he's taking a route that he and everyone else knows is sure to fail if the goal is to really change anything.
I hear that approval ratings for Congress are at 14%. I wonder just who that 14% is. Not the left, right, or center. Must be the ones not paying attention.
So Dennis coined Medicare For All. That fits on my bumper.
So why did Mr. Mogulescu ignore Dennis Kucinich? And luckylefty, one thing you can count on from Dennis is his word. If he says he will do something he will do it. He will never say one thing and then do another. And he knows the art of compromise and picking your battles better than I, but I'm not a politician. Suffice it to say the corporations hate him, ignore him, ridicule him and refuse to fund him. And the Democratic Party pretty much treats him the same way.
I believe the Canadian model is misrepresented in the USA
Here in British Columbia, everyone pays $75 a month for health care...and often the employer picks up that cost as a benefit.
The truly poor can apply to have welfare pay their $75.
and the basic Canadian federal tax rate is:
0% for first $10,000
17% %for next $17,000
22% on the next $37,000
26% on the next $46,000
29% on anything over $120,000
so on $100,000 income, would pay $20,442
Basic US Income tax is :
10% first $7,000
15% next $22,000
25% next $44,000
28% next $75,000
33% next $150,000
35% anything over $336,000
so one $100,000 would pay $22,000
so Canadians not only get cheap and efficient health care, they pay less taxes overall.
why cant the USA get it together?
In answer to how many people would be out of jobs and at what cost please check out this link--- http://lpa.igc.org/documents/jhc_financing.html
John Conyers Bill HR 676 borrowed heavily from the Labor Partys "Just Health Care" program part of which is called "Just Transition". It is the most articulate study and plan you will see for the question of cutting the insurance companies out, which as the author concludes must happen for real HC for all.
Please check it out.
BTW, has anyone actually dealt with an employee of an insurance company? Insurance salesmen. The people who tell you that they are approving your claim after years of paying premiums. The people who raise your rates.
I'm not losing any sleep if any of these people are out of a job. They are in the fundamentally immoral business of profiting from the sicknesses and injuries of other people. I see no reason to maintain that longer than neccessary.
Hmmm, when people discuss trying to shut down the mafia, do we put much thought then into the fact that some hitmen and enforcerers and loan sharks are going to be out of a job? Not really. And this seems like about the same argument here in this case.
It might be interesting to hear what BS these lying candidates would give back to that question. But if someone spiked their water glasses with truth serum, I know what the real answers would be.
"Mr Moderator, in order to become President a candidate must raise hundreds of millions of dollars. In order to obtain such a pile of money, I must take large contributions from the insurance companies, the HMOs and the big pharmaceutical companies. Quite naturally, they are not going to give this money to a candidate who is supporting a policy that would either restrict their profits or in some cases force them out of a profitable line of business. In the end, this means that what's best for the American people simply doesn't matter. I want what's best for me. And for me, I think its best that I become President of the United States. In order for me to get what I want, I need millions of dollars of contributions. So I'm going to do what the insurance companies tell me to do."
Of course, as long as the American people continue to vote for lying jerks who do this and are actually working against the best interests of all Americans, this is how its going to be. The day the American people wake up and realizes these are all professional liars who just will screw them, and then decide to vote for candidates that have the interests of the American people at heart, that's when this will end.
Don't vote Democrat in 2008!
We have socialized fire departments, socialized police forces, socialized military, socialized highways and socialized school systems to name but a few. While they are all insufficient in many ways, the intention is to provide at least a thin veneer of civilization on our society. So when some moron like Guiliani wants to call universal health care "socialized medicine" throw the sociallized NYPD and NYFD back in his smug mug.
Mr. Miles Mogulescu
meet
Mr. Dennis Kucinich
Dennis is running for president and advocates single payer universal healthcare. Did you not know that ? Or, were you only considering the candidates the corporations tell us are "electable"
Notice the connection between representing the people and electability.
The more a candidate represents the people the less "electable" he or she becomes to the corporations and their sheep
Glide625,
"...how many employess would lose their jobs?"
Answer: Not nearly so many as have lost middle class employment since the Masters start shipping those jobs (with full support of Dems) to any slave labor pit they could find anywhere on the planet. MILLIONS over the last 35 years since Master began his war on us to take back HIS country - and now HE has it all once again. Health care? For you? Don't be silly. Slaves don't get health care. Slaves don't get education. Slaves don't have any "Rights" that any Master needs to consider. Slaves are fungible. Now, get on your knees, Salute the Flag, and say your Pledge of Allegiance to Master. NOW SLAVE!
Do not worry. Do not concern yourself. Put your heads down and go back to sleep. No one will ask any of Master's Overseers any uncomfortable questions. Master's bat, Master's ball, Master's tv studio. They will never embarrass, let alone oppose Master.
And yes, Kucinich is appropriately invisible. Doesn't matter. His performance at the '04 DNC demonstrated all we need to know. He was taken into the back room with the Big Boys, did his little dance for them, dropped his pants and took it in the ass, like a good little wannabe with a trophy wife. Wellstone on the other hand, he was a different kettle of fish. But then he had a nasty accident, didn't he? Got his wife on that one too. Two birds, one plane crash. Wasn't that how they got Torrijos and Dag Hamerskold? Ah, the more things change...
SO WHATCHA GONNA DO ABOUT IT???????? Hhhmmmm? I know. Let's talk some more. It will while away the hours until we're dead, or worse.
Piece.
People didn't you know the media decides who the serious contenders are by how how much support major corporations donate to them. The only way were going to be able to fight back is by increasing the individuals donation a thousand fold.
There's two ways to do that is by getting the business out of government by legislation, or for all voters standing up and donating to the people they would really like for president. Donation of time is every bit as important as donating money. If you like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich get a yard sign declaring your support, talk to your neighbors, coworkers. Each and every one of us can make a difference.
There's no reason in the world we can't have a single payer system. As far as putting a bunch of people out of a job, I think the only people who would be hurt is the top executives in the health insurance industries. As far as the workers go I wouldn't have any problem with a government financed temproary unemployment system for them.
Glide:
1. The change would not happen overnight
2. Some will still need to work within the Single Payer system
3. If they work for big pharma, chances are they can get another job
4. If they are unemployed, at least they have health care!
I think that some people out of work for a handful of time would be better than the thousands dead for lack of insurance. I think your IRS argument is more intriguing.
Get your "Medicare for All" bumper stickers and tee shirts.
This is a good article. Although most probably don't really care to consider such items, the question that has puzzled me is that if we went to a single payer system, how many insurance companies would be put out of business and how many employess would lose their jobs? Where would all those people go and what would they do for a living? It's like the "abolish the IRS" and go to a national sales tax. What would happen to millions of tax preparers, accountants, CPA's, office clerks, etc. It's made me wonder if perhaps the people behind the empty suits that run for president haven't advised them that they can't really "promise" a single payer health care system because they know it would create an economic shock to the economy that would take years to work out of?
Yeah - that's the problem with declairing that there are 3 leading candidates - nobody elected them - it is a huge flaw in the democratic system if we can't even CONSIDER any candidates other than these 3 this far from the election.
-- "Thank you, Mr. Mohulescu, for adding to the reasons the Democrats will not win the presidency and will probably lose their control of congress. They just don’t get it. They are not seriously interested in representing the people." --
And then the Republicans will retain control of administration and will regain Congress, and we'll all be serfs working for an openly acknowledged noble class who claims they deserve the priviledge of health care because they earned it on the open market. (Or their daddies did.) We can go suck on our sickles.
There has *got* to be a better answer than that and don't tell me it's voting third-party in the next presidential election because that leads right back to the Republicans in power, every time.
Thank you, Mr. Mohulescu, for adding to the reasons the Democrats will not win the presidency and will probably lose their control of congress. They just don't get it. They are not seriously interested in representing the people.
Miles Mogulescu concisely states the theme of his article in the 2nd paragraph: "The leading Democratic candidates – Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama – criticize America’s broken health care system and call for fundamental change with great rhetorical flair. But when it comes to proposing the most effective plan for change – Medicare For All – they don’t show an audacity of hope. They show a paucity of courage."
It is unbelievable that Mr. Mogulescu's article does not even MENTION Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, another candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, who has made universal nonprofit publicly-administered single-payer health care a cornerstone of his campaign -- even using the very phrase "Medicare For All" to describe his proposal.
It seems to me that by completely ignoring the one Democratic candidate who is fighting to get single-payer universal health care "on the table", that Mr. Mogulescu is contributing to the very problem that his article laments.
Tavis is a nice man, but he loves the Clintons, and now he loves Obama. I'm not looking for him to apply too much pressure (make anyone uncomfortable) during this so called debate.
Great article and comments, Medicare for all is the only reasonable solution to our disgusting mess, how can we account for spending billions on war and not providing medical care for our population like every other civilized country on earth. It is about time for a little courage from our democrats if not we are all doomed.