COMarc:

YOU HATE THE REPUBS; YOU HATE THE DEMS; YOU HATE NADER FOR RUNNING ON A GREEN/THIRD PARTY TICKET (WHICH YOU CONSTANTLY CALL OUT FOR!). WHAT THE HELL DO YOU NEED TO MAKE YOU HAPPY? YOUR NEGATIVITY IS GETTING DAMN TIRESOME.

WITH ONE WORD,HILLARY LOST MY VOTE..THE WORD WAS'MANDATORY'OH WONT THOSE INSURANCE COMPANIES LOVE HER ?HOUSE AND AUTO INSURANCE IS MANDATORY,AND WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS,THEY SAY"FUCK YOU,INSURANCE IS MANDATORY,SO WE DONT HAVE TO DO JACK FOR YOU" (GO CRAWL TO YOUR HOLES AND DIE)HIL=LIAR-Y,YOU ARE AN INSURANCESLUT,THE PROBLEM IS THAT PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD INSURANCE(AS IT IS) AND THAT WILL NOT CHANGE BY MAKING IT'MANDATORY'IT WILL ONLY ADD TO THE FINANCIAL STRAIN,WE ALL ALREADY HAVE DO TO THE GREEDY,INSURANCE=PIGS !!(I WILL NOW VOTE FOR DENNIS OR PERHAPS OBAMA)

DENNIS FOR PRESIDENT!

"And you will vote with the health insurance industry."

BUSINESS as usual...

My advice...anyone who can get out of the US run for your lives. It is better everywhere else

we must congressional district by congressional district build support for HR676-the conyers single payer bill--we must start today and continue tomorrow---

Death to socialized medicine and people with brown skin...Support the American Way!

You will never, EVER have single payer in america as long as you support the Democratic Party. That is fact. Democrats are making you all look like CHUMPS.

USA is the most fucked up nation in the industrialized world, bar none. War against the citizens of the world, war against its own citizens....war, war, war. That's all the USA knows...WAR!

Grousefeather:
You said it all in three words: DENNIS FOR PRESIDENT!

Unlike, of course, the writer of this piece. Mr. Mokhiber, if you are reading this, WHY NO MENTION OF CONGRESSMAN KUCINICH WHO HAS A PLAN FOR ALL YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT??!!

ed cloonan:
It is, in fact, Conyers/KUCINICH! Are you part of the media blackout also???

http://www.dennis4president.com/home/

Does Hillary really think that there are families out there that do not have health care because the CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE ANY??????

This should be called the "Let Them Eat Cake" plan..

what? the masses can't afford healthcare? Better FINE THEM.

yeah...that'll help, thanks for nothing Hil

Did anyone really expect anything less from Hillary? Her best supporters are insurance companies. Now she can legislate that people MUST pay these companies or else. ASSANINE!

"Everybody put the money you pay now into one pot"

Yep, good deal for some, and bad deal for me. My contribution to the "pot" currently buys me an appointment with my doctor within 24 hours, and quick access to any service I need. So my level of service drops while my cost remains the same... and I'm supposed to support this?

dlnelson7: "My advice…anyone who can get out of the US run for your lives. It is better everywhere else"

Certainly it is better in a lot of developed countries... Americans are so insular they don't realise just how badly things are here.

For me, its New Zelaand or bust! I've been once & next time I go, it will be to stay!

"Does Hillary really think that there are families out there that do not have health care because the CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE ANY??????"

Yes, because there are, large numbers of them. People who COULD afford insurance with some minor sacrifices in other areas (no I'm not talking about food or housing, cable, tv, or other "luxuries"). Not every uninsured certainly, some some percentage, you bet.

In response to nwfisher: The average American worker makes $36,000 a year and the typical health insurance policy for a family of 4 without enormous deductibles costs $12,000 a year. It seems to me that this is indeed a hardship for most families to pay 1/3 of their income for health insurance.

I read that universal health care would cost 3% of income. If that is true, the only people who would be paying more for the same health care would be 'workers' making over $400,000 a year. A family making $72,000 a year (twice the aveage) would pay $2160.00 in increased taxes to save $12,000 in premiums. Even if your company pays your premiums, they could save enormously with a single payer universal health care (not health insurance) system and give you a raise to cover the tax increase.

We Are The 801 might be interested to learn that New Zealand is having its own problems with providing affordable health care for its citizens and is in the process of implementing a new round of cuts in health care services. The facts are easily googled.

Oh no! If we spend so much money on healthcare for the American people we won't have enough money to conduct wars aroiund the world. How do you expect our "defence" industry to survive if you think that way?

Yes, Joe, they are having problems. As if any form of universal health care does not. My kiwi girlfriend however has done quite well using the healthcare system there. New Zealand also is a much smaller country (land mass of Colorado, population of Dallas) so naturally it is more difficult.

Nevertheless its a damn sight better than what the US has & they at least have a better sense of priorities (and not just in healthcare).

*ahem*

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care
May 15, 2007 (updated May 16, 2007)

"Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance, relative to other countries. This report—an update to two earlier editions—includes data from surveys of patients, as well as information from primary care physicians about their medical practices and views of their countries' health systems. Compared with five other nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom—the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives. The U.S. is the only country in the study without universal health insurance coverage, partly accounting for its poor performance on access, equity, and health outcomes. The inclusion of physician survey data also shows the U.S. lagging in adoption of information technology and use of nurses to improve care coordination for the chronically ill......

".....Among the six nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2006 and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity."

"....Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the six countries, with the U.K. and New Zealand ranking first and second, respectively...."

".....As in the earlier editions, the U.S. ranks last on indicators of patient safety, efficiency, and equity. New Zealand, Australia, and the U.K. continue to demonstrate superior performance, with Germany joining their ranks of top performers....."

But of course, "....The findings indicate room for improvement across all of the countries...."

I believe the Dems first proposed some form of National Health in 1948. We're still waiting.

How often have the Dems controlled the White House and Congress since that time? The last time was in 93-95 and the Clinton administration made an attempt at National Health.

It was complicated, Industry friendly and Doomed from the start. It's author? Hillary Clinton. Yes, she's screwed it up once already but it looks like in the interim she's come up with a plan that's even MORE friendly to the Health Care Industry.

I read a truly disheartening poll yesterday in the LA Times which quoted several working and middle class women as saying they were voting for Hillary because of her experience. At what? Failure?

Hillary (and Bill) are the real Democratic Party these days...along with the wretched Pelosi and Reid.

It's time for Progressives to walk...no, run to the nearest 3rd Party. The Democratic Party is the place Reform goes to die. I respect and admire Kucinich but the reason he is a Dem is, wittingly or unwittingly, to keep us in the fold with a picture of what a "true" Dem candidate would be.
It ain't gonna happen friends. DK would never be PERMITTED to have the nomination, much less the White House.

I will not vote ever again for the least worst candidate. I do not believe democracy should be about expediency. It should be about choice and what we WANT for the future, not about what we FEAR about the future.

The 2 party system is no longer relevant to post-industrial America. We need a 3rd party, a 4th party and maybe a 5th or 6th. To all you Democrat party apparatchiks, hangers-on and enablers out there: I know, I know...Ralph Nader, Ralph Nader, Ralph Nader!!!!!
Remember, if Al Gore hadn't spoiled the race for the only true Progressive, Ralph might be President and we would't be in this mess.

Cindy Sheehan for Congress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nwfisher is covered. Unless nwfisher's insurance company decides one day that nwfisher is not covered.

Celebrity - Reread the article. Dennis Kucinich is mentioned, if only in passing.

First, should we distinguish between single-payer health insurance (Canada) and a federal provider of health care (England)? In my opinion the single-payer should be the goal, not a single-provider.

Second, it seems like there are a lot of ways to insure more people if the R's fear a government managing the healthcare. First, everyone gets access to the same healthcare plan that Congress and the President get, and they get Medicare or buy their own from a private insurer. Everyone in the country above poverty pays the same percentage of their income to subsidize the cost. And Congress can't borrow against that fund! Second, private health insurers must be nonprofit (still profitable for the CEO but less pressure from investors), cannot turn anyone away, and must offer at a minimum whatever is offered under Medicare. They probably can't offer it for less than Medicare, so they'd probably shift to providing better care at higher cost. As long as there is no opt-out provision for the rich not to pay into the Medicare insurance system, let 'em go. It's a compromise that the wealthy R's will support.

Seems simple enough yet a huge improvement in the number of insured, right? Doesn't put the private insurers out of business, so some R's might actually vote for it. And we probably need a D president and some R's to buy in for this type of reform to pass.

Edwards's plan seems closest. The plan that Conyers and Kucinich are backing might make more sense, but would any R ever vote for it? I don't think they even have all of the D's behind it.

Arguably, having SOME private insurers in the game could cut both ways. The rich and healthy could all jump to private insurance and Congress could chip away at the health care provided under Medicare to "cut costs." Already there are procedures and medications not covered by Medicare. So in that respect the Conyers/Kucinich plan seems like the better way to go.

To: nwfisher

There is absolutely no reason why the United States cannot implement a national health care system from cradle to grave for every single person who is in this country.

This is not rocket science. I am a Registered Nurse and I can tell you how we could very simply set up this system: Bring all the nuns in from every city in the country that currently run "not for profit" hospitals and clinics and give them the national mandate to study the best health care system in the world then create a plan to implement that system in the United States. Period. The basic wheel is already out there. We need not reinvent it.

Of course we would have to cut the bloated military budget down to where it belongs, bring all our soldiers home from the Phillipines, South Korea, Iraq and other places they really don't belong.

While we're busy hiring Americans to help build these new hospitals and clinics all over the country and staff them, we can also focus on more preventive health care measures for the American people. Such as rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure, creating sustainable farming communities all over America with healthy, organic produce, launching a desperately needed Manhattan project to create renewable energy for the United States in order to get off the oil tit and stop global warming. And on and on.

But, as already mentioned, this can only happen if we have the collective will to cut the nose off the military-industrial complex Eisenhower so bravely warned us about.

The ideal future for our planet is if EVERY country does what Sally Field so galantly said last night at the Emmy's: "Let women and mother's run the world and the militarism would stop." We need satellite clinics all over the country for Americans for drug withdrawal, the cessation of cigarette smoking, weight loss and exercise clinics, birth control for every man or woman from 13 on up who asks for it, dental, vision, mental health!!!!

We are currently a cancer on this planet. If we honestly care about those yet born, we must begin MANAGED care of all people on Earth. Which would naturally empower women to take control of their bodies. Which would lower the birth rate and help women become educated. The cycle of unwanted pregnancies and the abuse of women must be stopped internationally.

The cycle of poverty, illness and global contamination and destruction must be stopped. And universal...PLANETARY...health care is at the foundation of this process.

The only thing lacking is our political will. The People I believe, if properly educated, would be on board with the above ideas. It is in their best interests and their children's best interests to do so. Sadly, people like Hillary Clinton and the other Democrats and Republicans (except Dennis Kucinich) are so beholden to big pharma and insurance companies that they are merely corporate owned whores/pimps...not true Representatives of the People and the planet.

What is the likelihood that if Kucinich was elected he would win against the Republican candidate with this spin machine at full throttle? I love Dennis as much as anybody, but as long as the media is controlled by the corporations the people don't have a chance. Everyone doesn't have the time or patience to stay home and read blogs all day.

I know we all know right from wrong and are the special ones, but the rest of the country is far behind. Many people probably think that having a woman president is a big step forward.

How do we stay ahead of Paris and OJ and help people get the information they need to stay informed? I think part of it is that people need to wake up. They need to realize that being silent is not ok. They need to realize the seriousness of the war machine and the corpstate and how it is affecting them personally. I think if we personalize things more it will do more good then blogs and blogs of information. Don't get me wrong, I have learned alot here, but that is a long time comin before the majority of us have enough education to make educated decisions so to speak.

I would suggest taking it to the streets and your communities. Young people get creative, do some political theatre, watch some of the Yippies at work, the theater of the absurd and such. Old people, have conversations at the cafes, like you really cared about the kids and their future. I hear alot of intelligence, but what about the heart. We need to be the change we want to see.

I know the media is very biased and there are many splintered movements around the country, but it starts with you and your neighborhood. For instance, as a full time pedestrian, I no longer accept cars bullying me, if a car doesn't slow down while I am in the crosswalk, they get a piece. Stuff like that. It just seems ridiculous to walk around asleep and then get on our computers and pretend that we are the ones who are awake.

So, you are educated, but you are also constantly complaining, wouldn't the time be better spent by organizing? Let me know what you think, ideas of how to come together on one issue like universal health care or ending the warfare state.

It seems like big events in Washington don't work anymore, the media is blacking out so many stories, no pun intended Rev. Yearwood.
Power to the people!

You guys...psssssst....nwfisher is an insurance industry financed troll.

Don't respond to his self serving lies.

"Instead, Hillarycare is a plan the health insurance corporations will love, something that Mitt Romney and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger could love - a plan that mandates that every individual go out and pay for his or her own health insurance coverage - like auto insurance.

You must be covered - or you will pay a fine."

No, actually, I won't. I will not support the criminal health insurance industry with my mostly non-existent money when their entire business plan is basically to not cover people; and I won't pay a fine either. I can't believe that this sort of corporate-dream law is able to be spun as universal health care. americans have a right to single-payer, non-profit healthcare; and that is what I will put a part of my income into; nothing else.

LeeAnnG: Thank you for pointing it out. And it WAS "only in passing"; it's how I missed it--TWICE. I wrote to Russ and he responded...I apologized...he accepted. But it WAS "only in passing", as you mentioned.

I am really getting tired of the nay-sayers on this site.
It is no wonder we are AGAIN going to end up with a politcian-as-usual in the W.H. next go 'round. I think we should ALL dig for reasons not to support D.K. That way we can stay in our comfort zones and keep bitching and whining for the next four years also.

"Did anyone really expect anything less from Hillary? Her best supporters are insurance companies. Now she can legislate that people MUST pay these companies or else."

Didn't she try to claim executive privilege to cover the closed-door meetings with the corporate medical monstrosities, when she wasn't even a government official? Evidently on the Yahoo mashup, she pretended that now she'd seen the light, that the companies had had "too much influence" when she was trying the scam the first time. These people always put things in such a passive voice -- as if "influence" just "happened" -- "influenc" falls like rain, "Look, it was influencing, how could I not be influenced?"

She's rotten to the core.

I agree with what celebrity just said right above me ^^^^

Let's stop saying "but, but, but" and start working with a sense of hope and from your conscience. There's nothing else higher we can do right now.

Wonderful and concise. A perfect summary of how I feel at the moment.

I have been pushing this idea in hopes that it will gain traction. As an american it sems that concerned individuals seem to have little effect in bringing about change. Many individuals of character (Cindy Sheehan/Nader) and many groups (ACLU/Anti-War movement) can not penetrate the blanket of dollars that corporations use to suppress meaningful change and more importantly even let fellow american understand how many americans do NOT approve of the direction, ethics and policy of this once great nation.
I suggest that a a coalition of ALL groups (Immigration/Anti-War/Anti-globalization Healthcare/Free Speech/Free Press- and just concerned Americans in general) combine and simultaneously withdraw an average of 10,000 dollars oout of the banking/brokerage section of this country for sa one week. If a combined group of 10,000,000 people withdrew an average of $10,000 dollars - we would effectively have removed 100 billion in cash - but due to fractional reserve banking as much as 10 TRILLION dollars out of the economy.

OUR MONEY - they use to finance deadbeat corporations (such as Enron and worldcomm amongst many other corupt anti-american people corporations) -not to mention the governement who would rather show 50 people protesting in Burma a dozen times in a day - but not the 100,000 in Washington DC on September 15th or the one million in NYC during the Republican National Convention - as well as countless other examples. They are using OUR MONEY as collateral to do harm to US.

If -it is possible to combine our goals into one goal - which is to let these corporations/governmets KNOW that we KNOW - they are sing OUR MONEY to finance a WAR against US - and we will move it to Switzerland or some other country - just like they outsource oor jobs - we could single handly achieve the greatest worldwide non-violent most effective protest in the history on mankind.

We already know - that Mexico's biggest foreing exchange generator is immigrants sending money back home - more than oil!! - Imagine the message we would be able to send to all oppressed people everywhere - if we could successfully withdraw upto 10 trillion dollars in funds from the worlds largest economy !! All of a sudden the contempt from our congressman, senators, police, banks, corporations and brokerage houses would shrivel to the size of a raisun in the sun.

What do you guys think! I see no other way for americans to restore their voice in thie governance of our country - with out getting arrested/fired/balcklisted ad nauseum!!!!!

Surprise, surprise, surprise ... the Democrats are willing to sacrifice good health care to all Americans in order to generate more profits for the corporations that fund their party.

The only part I don't get is why does anyone except the lobbyist even vote for this party?

Can I borrow $10,000 from you so I can withdraw it?

p.s. and once again....the insurance companies are doctors that specialize in blood-letting and leeches.......

nwfisher, you state that you would have to pay the same but accept lower service and then you ask "are you supposed to support this?" Hell, yes, nwfisher, because if we don't start somewhere to begin sharing the unlimited bounty of this world, we're going to snuff ourselves out. You have to think big picture, not just about your individual greed/need.

We're all in this together. Maybe we can stretch out this corporate greed model for another generation or two and, yeah, nwfisher, maybe your descendants will score, luck out and have their needs met. . . but if you think big picture, like human race big picture, and planet earth big picture. . . somewhere someonw has to stop basing their choices on what's in it for them and start choosing 'what will serve the common good?'

So, nwfisher, I invite you to start the change that can change everything. Stop being selfish.

Hilary sickens me. Kucinich doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. I am 54 and I've voted in every presidential election since I turned 18. I have voted in every election I have ever been eligible to vote in. In college studying in Mexico and then Colombia, I made sure I had absentee vallots. Last fall, I moved to California in early October and while the guys were unloading my truck, I went to the library to get the form to register to vote.

But I'm thinking my vote doesn't mean bupkiss anymore. Why bother? I don't believe the majority of people who will vote Democratic next year want Hilary or Obama but the corporate money is going to shove one of them down our throats and at least they won't be a Republican so, what, we're supposed to vote for the least worst.

There is no f'ffing way I'm gonna vote for Hilary. I'll waste my vote but I will not waste it on her.

Her health care plan sickens me even more than her pro-war votes.

To fail to fully endorse (but to merely mention) the one Democratic Party candidate who advocates the very health policy Americans want simply plays into the hands of the corporate regime and the corporate Democrats. Shame on Russell Mokhiber for presuming that the true progressive in the race, Dennis Kucinich, cannot win. If progressives will not endorse and promote progressive candidates who advocate our progressive policies--that is crazy and just what our adversaries want.

abbybwood____ you make some very good points about what is ailing our country and the health non system. However your comment on Sally Field saying things would be better if women and mothers were running the country is a dream. Remember, in America, we want women barefoot and pregnant, in the kitchen baking cookies (like Hillary does). Also, it seems that Pelosi has not been too effective in shutting down this miserable occupation, which is disappointing to many of us that had high hopes for her speakership.

Yup. Hillary Marie Antoinette Clinton. Is there a dimes worth of difference between HillaryMarie care and Romney care?
A third or fourth party isn't just revenge politics. It is essential to democratic government. Remember how quickly Thomas Paine exposed the British check and balance system as a farce ? The U.S. C and B system is a little different but it doesn't work either. The Iraq war, the Patriot Act, the Spy on America Act are the latest examples. The lack of single payer health care is a long running example.

With three (or more) parties in congress, presidents are unlikely to have a party majority. Imperial war as well as domestic shenanigans become much more problematic. In a majority of convenience, the other parties can have enough votes to override vetoes, or to impeach and remove a mutinous president.
In a real multi-party system, candidates for president must appeal to the voters of at least one other party to get elected. The politicians of that party are more capable of holding presidents to their word than are unorganized independent voters. It will then become known, at home and abroad, that presidents are presidents of the United States rather than just the president of a political party.
This two party oligarchy will last only as long as people keep voting for it

Skinnycat, a true multi-party democracy, which we both favor, comes from a particular set of electoral procedures. Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, Germany, Israel and many other nations (about 81) follow the various derivations of these procedures. And most relevant for Americans, the transition from a two-party system (single-seat districts, most-voters-win voting (called first-past-the-post in many nations) to a multi-party system has been made by New Zealand in the 1990s. And it is now proposed for the State of Ontario. Their referendum vote on the matter is October 10. An Ontario-wide citizen commission was called and decided on MMP (like Germany and New Zealand) as an alternative that would create a true multi-party system. Fortunately the main adherants of the progressive platform (The Green Party/Nader/Kucinich) all endorse such a system, calling it proportional representation. An cursory search for MMP and Ontaria or New Zealand will reveal the details of how this happened. And if they did it, so can we. But your conclusion that "this two-party oligarchy will only last as long as people keep voting for it" falls a little short. I'd modify that to say "This two-party oligarchy will last until We The People exercise our right according the Preamble to revise our system to a multi-party democracy as many other nations have done." While the body of the Constitution doesn't allow for a national referendum to decide any issue, even electing the president, the Preamble presupposes such a right. It is consistent with the ninth and 10th Amendments as well. It is a matter for progressives to come together and do the obvious: fix the system by amending the Constitution with a constitutional convention as the US states have done, collectively 233 times.

Skinnycat, a true multi-party democracy, which we both favor, comes from a particular set of electoral procedures. Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, Germany, Israel and many other nations (about 81) follow the various derivations of these procedures. And most relevant for Americans, the transition from a two-party system with its single-seat districts, most-voters-win voting (called first-past-the-post in many nations) to a multi-party system has been made by New Zealand in the 1990s. And it is now proposed for the State of Ontario. Their referendum vote on the matter is October 10. An Ontario-wide citizen commission was called and decided on MMP (like Germany and New Zealand) as an alternative that would create a true multi-party system. Fortunately the main adherants of the progressive platform (by The Green Party/Nader/Kucinich) all endorse such a system, calling it proportional representation. An cursory search for MMP and Ontaria or New Zealand will reveal the details of how this happened. And if they did it, so can we. But your conclusion that "this two-party oligarchy will only last as long as people keep voting for it" falls a little short. I'd modify that to say "This two-party oligarchy will last until We The People exercise our right according the Preamble to revise our system to a multi-party democracy as many other nations have done." While the body of the Constitution doesn't allow for a national referendum to decide any issue, even electing the president, the Preamble presupposes such a right. It is consistent with the ninth and 10th Amendments as well. It is a matter for progressives to come together and do the obvious: fix the system by amending the Constitution with a constitutional convention, as the US states have done collectively 233 times.

I'm a life-long democrat, but I will not vote for any democrat in the 2008 election
who does not offer a single-payer health care plan and who refuses to hold Bush,
Cheney, and others in the administration accountable NOW for starting a war on lies
which has thus far caused the deaths of over a million, mostly innocent, human
beings . . .

I don't want Hillary, Obama, and the others, except Dennis Kucinich and Al Gore.

As far as being fined because I don't buy health insurance . . . I'd be fined for having no
money. Hillary-Dillery, Biden, Dodding, Obahma, and the rest can shove it!

No! Dems get no support or votes from me unless they start upholding the Constitution,
remove the rot currently in power, and respond to the basic needs of every citizen - beginning
with a single-payer health care plan.

Everybody wear tee shirts and sweaters declaring support for KUCINICH & GORE,
and single-payer health care.

John Nichols on Hillary's proposal:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=233626

I believe a bill for a national health insurance program has been introduced in the House of Representatives every year since 1933. John Dingell Sr. introduced it in 1933 and continued to do so until his death at which time his son introduced it each year. John Dingell Jr. is still in the House of Representatives with 50 years of service so far.

I refuse to pay for health insurance, I do not want it and will refuse to pay a fine. They cannot get blood from a rock.

Write in Kucinich.

What a despicable approach to national healthcare for all Americans.

This is just another windfall for the insurance companies the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession, Hillary's biggest contributors.

Lets face it we can never get consistent decent healthcare when there is a profit motive attached to every diagnosis. Single payer Medicare for everyone not just senior citizens is the only way to establish reliable trustworthy healthcare for all citizens.

Of course if the choice is between Giuliani and Hillary I guess we will have to go with the lesser of two evils?

But this is really not a choice for progressive Americans. It is like choosing between a candidate who wants to stay the course and expand the war and a candidate who wants to stay the course and expand the war.

Most liberals are not fooled by Hillary's newly adopted anti war rhetoric, we have been watching what she has done, not what she is saying now. She is definitely a pro war senator who has been rattling her saber almost as loud as Bush and heir Lieberman.

It looks like we are heading for another catastrophic election in 2008 we the progressive voice of America will be stifled again. Thus far it seems like if either the leading republican or the leading democrat gets elected there will be little or no change for the majority of Americans.

As hopeless as it might appear at the moment, support the only candidate in the race who makes any sense at all. DENNIS KUCINICH.

trillions of dollars have been spent to maim and kill people....when they could have bought every man,woman and child,healthcare.the insurance companies are the most corrupt businesses of all,and you dont throw good into bad...that should be obvious.it is not the mortgages or taxes that are killing homeowners-it is the insurances...and if you let them control our right to live and be healthy..they will gladly kill us,with their mandatory arrogance and huge profit-lusts.

"Everyone" seems to think Dennis Kucinich is the man with the people's message but damn few seem to be smart or couragous enough to vote for him. Damn if I understand the herd mentality of the people of my country, if only a few minutes was given over to critical thought by each of us, what a different country we could have! As it is, sliding into Facism because we want to be 'safe and secure' seems to be our choice. Here's something to cook on.....We are all going to die, it's just a matter of timeing! How safe and secure is that? Why trade liberty during our lives for an unatainable security?

Veteran '66-68

We Are The 801 September 17th, 2007 3:26 pm

""…..Among the six nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2006 and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity.""

The only thing the U.S. Healthcare system is efficient at is making huge profits for their shareholders; better health outcomes are a secondary consideration, which is precisely why this country needs to go with the "single payer" health plan proposed by presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich.