"A recent survey of Massachusetts physicians found that almost two-thirds favor single payer..."

I hope then, that they are supporting Dennis Kucinich, he being the only 2008 candidate who proposes a single payer health care system.

It's disappointing that an article like this studiously avoids mention of the one presidential candidate whose name ought to be emblazoned all over it.

"Despite the merits of a single-payer system, none of the major 2008 presidential candidates supports it."

That's a lie. Dennis Kucinich supports it and has, along with John Conyers, sent it to congress.

If you want health care support Kucinich.
If you don't want your family member to die for nothing in an illegal war, support Kucinich.

If you don't want to live unprepared in the wastes of a ruined world, support Kucinich.

And if the Dims don't support him, support a progressive alternative.

I know I sound like a stuck record but $4 trillion goes missing and how much better it would be to have used that money for U.S. citizens, universal health care, aid to the poor, new roads, bridges, so many better uses. I live in Canada, and all our governments have not kept funding for health care to match the population. There are better uses for our money, like tax breaks for large corporations, reduced royalties on our oil and gas production, the list goes on and on. Why care about people, let's face it, large corporations need the money more than the people do, money is God, and we should all bow down and subjegate ourselves to this new paradigm.

The only way to get single payer in the US is to elect a Democrat who does not endorse single payer while a candidate, plus a overwhelmingly Democratic and strongly progressive Congress, and then organize a national movement to promote the idea of single-payer and force the president and Congress to implement it.

No matter what they privately believe and wish for, none of the major Democratic presidential candidates, and few of those running for Congress, can afford to publicly endorse single-payer. Doing so would invite the wrath of the single largest moneypot in the nation, plus the corporate media, which is soaked in the insurance industry's advertising money. If you want to be president, and have a chance to do good things (like single-payer), you have to deal with the fact that if you come out publicly for this proposal as a candidate you will lose your chance.

This might not be true if the public were already educated and a consensus existed that "single-payer" is a good idea, but that is not the case. Rather, most people still don't know what that means and it can easily be spun as a loony far-left proposal to put government bureaucrats in charge of medicine, blah, blah...

So the order of business is, first, elect Democrats, including as many progressives as possible, second, or rather, at the same time, build a public movement (with support from doctors and from industrial interests that now see advantages in this shift) to promote the idea of "single-payer" or "Medicare for all", and finally, force a Democratic president and Congress to enact this monumental, historic change, which will obliterate the single largest financial industry in the nation and constitute the most significant social reform in our history since the New Deal.

To Anniesee and Jaded Prole, we're lucky that the authors left their e-mail addresses. I copied your comments into e-mails to both of them - YOU SHOULD DO THIS, TOO!!

And any other poster to this site should e-mail the authors directly and tell them to suupport D. Kucinich. Not only because of the single-payer issue but because of the impeachment issue, the withdrawl from Iraq issue, the rollback of tax breaks for the weathy issue, the illegal wiretapping issue, and a whole host of other issues that Kucinich supports.

E-mail the authors of this article directly telling them to support the best candidate on offer - Kucinich!

Not a chance... Hillary's plan for health care is just another Government handout the the Insurance Corperations.

Do it like SCHIP. Single payer, administered by each individual state. 70% of the nation would be behind it, and it would work.

paulbk1977 remember the good old days when the Provinces paid 50% of Health Care and the Federal government paid 50% of Health Care - before Paul Martin became finance Minister?

Paul Martin was trying to starve the system because Universal Health Care was too popular to scrap and he figured if he could starve the system that people would be more inclined to let the for profit profiteers in. While Michael Hochman and David Himmelstein talk about implimenting Universal Health Care in the US, there are those at work trying to dismantle it in Canada.

Think that this is a good point to honour Tommy Douglas - the Father of Medicare:

http://www.ndp.ca/page/4310

Noam Chomsky has been making this point for years. A large majority of Americans always say they would favor this system when asked. Yet, in our political process, its always viewed as a political non-starter.

Just like with the Iraq War, where we also see the will of a large majority of the American people ignored, what we are seeing is a broken political system. And that's what we need to fix. We need to fix the American political system such that we are once again a country of the people, by the people and for the people.

That's why voting Dem won't change things no matter what the details of their health care plan. Because the Dems are not going to change this political system. If the Dems won't fix what's obviously broken, we need another solution.

COMarc writes:

"A large majority of Americans always say they would favor this system when asked. Yet, in our political process, its always viewed as a political non-starter."

No, a majority of Americans will say they favor this system if you first explain it to them. If you just say "single-payer", most don't know what you're talking about, and many of those who do will immediately brand you a socialist and stop listening.

So, the problem faced by someone who actually wants to win the next presidential election is that if she says, "I propose a single-payer system," most voters won't know what that means, and the media and the insurance companies acting both through advertisements and corporate "news coverage" will portray it as "socialized medicine" and quickly generate a strong majority that is opposed to the idea and to the candidate who proposed it.

We can't ask a major candidate to endorse single-payer. We can, however, elect people who will be willing to take such a bold step when they are in office, not facing immediate reelection, and when there is a national demand created by a major public campaign for "single-payer" or another way of putting that, such as "Medicare for All."

So what do you call the Health Care system in the US now - unsocialized medicine?

With a single payer system, you can still choose any doctor you want. The Medical Insurance industry doesn't like that very much because it would put them out of business.

Anyone read what the Romanow Report say about private insurers? In Chapter One scroll down to the heading "Private For-Profit Service Delivery: The Debate". In Chapter 11 Roy talks about Health Care and Globalization.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/hcc0086.html

"Before summarizing the final report's recommendations, permit me to speak briefly on the issue of sustainability.

After carefully reviewing the available evidence- hard facts, not unproven assumptions- I also make the case in my report that Medicare is sustainable if we want it to be, that historically, single-payer health systems have proven to be significantly more cost-efficient than alternative approaches, and that despite the sometimes over-heated rhetoric, Canada's health outcomes remain among world's best." - Roy Romanow

Hey, Jaded Parole and Anniesss, I got a response to my e-mail to the doctor-authors of this piece. It said "Dear Ms. Donaldson [that'd be me]: I do appreciate your email. Actually, the original wording of our piece said "none of the major candidates except for Dennis Kucinich supports single-payer" but it was edited out. It is our fault for not looking over the edited version more carefully as I agree with the points you made and certainly wanted his name to be included,

Mike

Hmmm ... Dennis Kucinich's name 'edited out.' Now, let's just think who might have done that 'editing.' Votes from peanut gallery out there?!

Mike I am more interested in the reason it was edited out - both the official one and the real one.

The Baltimore Sun is a corporate operation and they do not want people to support Kucinich. They corporate media only mention Kucinich in denigrating ways becuase they do not see him as representing thier interests.

In France you chose your doctor. There is one form for all and the doctors, hospital and pharmacies all use it. It is efficient and quick. Doctors even make house alls at affodable prices. Maybe we should start trying de boogey man the term socialized. Socialized in this case is better than free market

But even those turned off by Mr. Moore's less-than-subtle style will find many reasons to support a single-payer system.

If those turned off by style were only turned on by substance...

Although few mainstream politicians endorse single payer, we see reason for optimism

Please, let us stop reinforcing criminal behavior in this society. We don't have single payer healthcare today because Washington is occupied by a criminal mafia that defies the will of the people. You treat the mafia nice and the mafia treats you like kaka. Surprise?

People, it's time to boycott the capitalist mafia. They only listen to ka-ching ka-ching - surprise? Heh heh.

Again, I'd like to ask how people would feel about a federally funded, but State administered health insurance-which of course would be non-profit.

I see a Federally Administered program as rife with corruption, especially since, as we see with many of these federal programs, you have about 25% of the public who are ideologues who are going to try to sabatoge these programs.

Social programs are going to have to move to the State Administration route, still using Federal Dollars, in order to counter the idealogues and their agenda to sabotage these successful programs.

Republicans are programmed to respond "socialized medicene" every time any Democrat mentions the term "health care", irrespective of the context in which it is mentioned. Playback the campaign speeches of the past six months if you don't believe me.

Since EVERY 2008 Democrat candidate is already being accused of advocating socilaized medicene, they should advocate single-payer. Otherwise the voters will rationalize that there is no difference between Democrat and Republican health care approaches.

jld_overseas, Anniesee and Jaded Prole
I e-mailed both doctors telling them they should have mentioned Kucinich if they wanted to give their readers the option to vote for a truly progressive candidate who supports single payer, rather than mentioning those who don't.
I hope more of us will send an email so they endorse DK.

Isn't it a bit unsocialized to pay so much for a system where so few people are covered.

The Provinces run Health Care in Canada, but the Federal Government has cut down substantially on their obligations towards it.

The Canada Health Act is Federal, though. The present government has chosen not to enforce it because they truly wish to scrap it.

The Canada Health Act says that health care should be Publicly Administered, Comprehensive, Universal, Portable, and Accessible.

As I see it, the only reason we do not have a single payer health care system in this country is because of the vested interests of the medical-industrial complex. A large majority of the American people, even with the distortions promulgated by those propaganda giants, want a universal health care system even if it means paying more taxes. Perhaps Mr Soros would be willing to fund an
educational advertising blitz explaining the benefits of a national plan vs. what we have now. Then all the stealth arguments etc would be unnecessary. For anyone who has done some independent homework on the issue, it is a no-brainer. Politicians take a great deal of money from this industry and the media makes even more airing their commercials. It aint gonna change unless the people insist, and they will insist, I believe, when they hear the truth. SO we need to get the truth out.

Hmm. So, we have information that the Baltimore Sun doesn't want us to know. We should give them a phone call and ask why they edited Kucinich's name out....

I wrote to the good doctors and encouraged them ( after the fact) to challenge the Sun for this particular editing decision. I also asked them to get their organization to endorse DK. Seems to make semse considering their stance on single payer.

In Kucinich's case, it would not affect his campaign financing limit because he's not going to reach it any ways. But one reason why names are not mentioned in articles and advertising by third parties is so that it doesn't count as campaign funding for the candidate.

But they usually hint very strongly that one should be voting according to which candidate promotes that specific issue.

jld-overseas, and principessaflamenco:

Yes, thanks - I have now e-mailed the doctors too, adding my views, and mentioning that I exerienced socialized medicine during most of my life in Britain, so I do know that of which I speak!

I, too, emailed the authors of this piece. Here's Dr. Hochman's reply:

"I had the opportunity to review the final version of the piece and therefore regretfully must say I am responsible for his name not being included. The Baltimore Sun felt that he has negligible support in the polls and therefore cannot accurately be described as a "major candidate."

I called the Baltimore Sun (800-829-8000) - actually I called the direct line to the Op- Ed editor, Michael Cross-Barnet, 410-332-6536, and could only leave a message asking why the Baltimore-Sun removed Kucinich's name from the essay. However, here is the email address, which will be forwarded to the appropriate editor: publiceditor@baltsun.com

When someone shouts "socialized medicine," just respond, "Yes, to go with our socialized education."

Propaganda. Propaganda. Propaganda!

Has the Baltimore Sun become something along the lines of Pravda? Disgusting.

You should be ashamed of yourselves, Mr. Hochman and Mr. Himmelstein. Or perhaps your exclusion of Dennis kucinich, the ONLY CANDIDATE proposing a TRUE universal single payer healthCARE system (not health INSURANCE system - did you catch the difference? did you?!) was not an accidental oversight but clearly intentional. You are not presenting any kind of debate on the issue. Why the heck even write the article? All of the candidates from both major parties (save Kucinich and possibly Gravel)) are proposing the EXACT same kind of health insurance that is run by for-profit corporations. PERIOD! There is simply nothing more to add beyond that! More of the same - more expensive treatments, more co-pays, more deductibles, more bankruptcies on the horizon for struggling Americans and more health insurance and paharmaceutical companies lining their pockets with billions of dollars at the disgraceful expense of the American working class and poor! Shameful!!

Please, I urge you to do a follow up (or correction perhaps?) to this article and layout point-by-point Dennis Kucinich's plan, HR 676. In fact why don't you try to challenge it? — maybe call up Congressman Kucinich and interview him, you know... throw him some hard-hitting questions that you journalists are so apt to do. Believe me, that would be an article worth writing. That way your readers, who help pay your salaries, would be priveleged to hear the truth for a change.

"When someone shouts "socialized medicine," just respond, "Yes, to go with our socialized education."

I always mention our socialized police and socialized firefighters.

EVERYTHING is a battle when you deal with the ruling class.it occured to me that "socialized" police,fire,and education really didn't become universal until the last quarter of the 19th century.as a practical matter,the concept that the state has a compelling interest in providing a decent education to ALL its citizens is only about 20 years old in my state of ky.until a landmark lawsuit brought by a major law firm owned by one of the few decent govs we ever had down here,our schools were financed by inequitable property taxes.real 19th century concentrated oligarchical crap.like frederick douglas said "power concedes nothing.never has.never will." its so sad,i'm actually optimistic,on the health care issue,peace.

I'm self employed and pay for my own insurance. My rates are going up 13.6% for next year. These types of increases occur yearly ! The system is pathetic in this country. We have plenty of money for tax breaks for the rich, coorporate welfare and warfare, but to help out American citizens it's considered SOCIALISM. It's too bad that this country's best days are behind it.

When someone shouts "socialized medicine," just respond, "Yes, the kind our Congress has enjoyed for years."

A candidate in a political campaign would be the perfect opportunity to have someone talk seriously and at length to the American people about a single-payer health care system. Our political elections are the one time the nation tunes in at all to questions of policy. And a political candidate is the one person to whom the nation would sit and listen. I'm old enough to remember Ross Perot talking to the nation about the deficit we were running during the Reagan\Bush years. By the philosophy Nader2000 exposes, that should never have worked. Yet the nation tuned in and listened when he bought a half-hour block of time to talk to the country about a serious issue.

Obama could do the same on health care. He could buy a half-hour chunk of time and talk to the nation about a single-payer health care plan. And if he timed it right, the nation would listen.

A Democratic Presidential contender is exactly the person who could talk to the nation about a single payer health care system and get the point across in detail. It wouldn't be political suicide. It would be political genius as when it was explained how it would work, its what everyone would want.

The fact, repeat FACT, that the Democrats have veered far away from this idea (go back and read Ted Kennedy in the 70's sometime) just shows you how disgusting the Democratic Party is in it constant servicing of the insurance, HMO, and big pharma industries. Absolutely the stupidest thing you could possibly do is to vote Democrat expecting them to roll this out after they've been elected. Not a chance that those bought-off and paid-for stooges of the insurance companies would ever do that.

PS ... I know Kucinich would favor this. But he's the token lefty in the race and doesn't have a snow-balls chance in hades of winning in the rigged game that is the undemocratic Democratic Party. Look up 'superdelegates' to know why Kucinich needs 60% of the vote to win. He'll be lucky if he gets 5% in the contested primaries. Kucinich doesn't represent the Democrats, and the powers at the top of the party will keep it that way.

As the conservative pundits keep telling me, I thought it was the Government's responsiblity to protect me from harm, and in every case, from death?

I guess when we're talking about people's HEALTH, that's not the case?

alhidalgo, if you had read the earlier posts, you wouldn't have lambasted the good doctors who wrote the essay. They had referred to Dennis Kucinich, but the good old Baltimore-Sun deleted that reference. If you want to yell at someone, go to my post of 4:46pm and take down some contact information for the Baltimore-Sun.

Enough with the demagoguery already!!

David Himmelstein- For years I have relied on you and Woolhandler to help me understand the American health care non-system. But the scales are falling from my eyes.

The big lie here isn't the omission of our man Kucinich. It's that Hillary Clinton's plan is just welfare for insurance companies. Far be it for me to defend Clinton's plan- but it's just flat wrong to misrepresent the plan like that. The Clinton plan expands the public sector. Americans would be allowed to get out of the private insurance world and sign up with a government system. It isn't "single" payer but it expands the public sector and shrinks the private sector.

And if public sector is good and more public sector is better then Clinton's plan is a good thing. It isn't the best thing. But BFD! Grow up! Of course driving a stake through the heart if the insurance industry would be a wonderful thing. But unless you all have a secret plan, then I'm thinking that single payer is up there with worker owned factories, land trusts, and municipal owned energy as wonderful ideas that we just aren't powerful enough to make happen.

So I have one question for all you single payer die hards who say that anything less is "incrementalism"- Have you ever spent a day in your life without coverage? Have you ever had to work two jobs- real crappy jobs with asshole bosses- just to grab some coverage for your family?

I don't call Clinton's plan incrementalism- I call it health care for my family. And that's not a luxury I can afford to scoff at.

"The new program would be funded by an increase in taxes..." =quote from article=

Why increase taxes!? Hell-take a fraction of the money the gov't is burning on the occupation of foreign countries & apply it towards Universal HealthCare. AND screw the "single payer" part!

Anybody think about who paid for the shrubs ass-reaming recently?? Well, it was done at Bethesda Naval Hosp-does that help? Worse yet, I heard he just loved the procedure it reminded him of what Mommy used to do to (for?) him! He wanted a weekly appt.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_false_claims_about_childrens_health_insurance.html

A guide to destorying radical conservatives on this issue.

Unfortunately, Moore's excellent movie didn't spark enough of a discussion.
Movie receipts:
Fahrenheit 911: 112 million
Sicko 23 million

See the drop in attendance? Even the prior movie, massively attended didn't have much of an impact.

The military/industrial/congressional/media complex . . . at it again. I bet if you asked the common man who Dennis Kucinich was, the answer would be "does he play baseball?" Or some other similar inanity. As a populace we are kept ignorant by our corporate-owned media. It is not in their interest to have their viewers be aware of anything that might make them vote in their own interest.

gtree61 says: The big lie here isn't the omission of our man Kucinich. It's that Hillary Clinton's plan is just welfare for insurance companies.

Probably it is.

Seems like Hillary's campaign has the most donations so far. When does she has to disclose everyone who has donated more than $100 to her campaign? When do the American people get to find out who gave her money. From the tone of this conversation, I am guessing that a few of you think that health insurance companies have donated to her war chest - though there is another possible explanation:

The rumours on this side of the border is that Bill is using his influence to censor magazines on the Democratic race - by pulling or altering any article which shows Hilary in even a slightly negative light. One of the people perpetuating these rumours is Naomi Klein's father-in-law Stephen Lewis:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1735

If Michael Hochman and David Himmelstein were to say that only Kucinich has a decent Health Care plan, they would be saying, without mentioning names, that Hillary's plan sucks.

Hey Vaudree, you obviously know more about it than I do, because I do not remember that fact, about 50-50 on health care, but it does explain a lot, as to why our system has gone downhill. What I do remember is how corporations used to pay at least 50% of the tax revenues for this country, same in the U.S. What has happened to that notion? The media really do shoulder a large portion of the blame for all this, by being so reticent on the enormous changes that have occurred both in our country and many of the industrialized nations. By allowing money to become more important than people, hard working people who just want a good life, a home, family, the simple enjoyments out of life. The media has been silent while the tax burden shifted, and as you point out about health care spending being equally divided by the provincial and federal governments. Too many policies have been brought in that have manipulated people into accepting changes that are not good for the majority, but are awesome for the top minority, the people who own most of the wealth, who have strong influence over what the media does and does not report. I remember reading one time, that the Business Council on National Issues, headed at the time by Thomas D'Aquino, was consulted before any new major policies where implemented by either of the two major Canadian parties, whoever happened to be in power at the time. These people are the majority? Hardly, and yet their influence is overwhelming on the policies instituted by governments here, and the same happens in the U.S. It is what is good for "business" not people that counts, too many manufacturing jobs are exported offshore, to sweatshops to allow callous, and morally bankrupt businesses to operate in countries where labour laws are either non-exsistent, or just a facade to give the appearance of caring. These corporations also export their more environmentally hazardous tasks overseas, better someone else far away getting sick, or dying than here, where they might have to face at least some laws with teeth. The idea of democracy here is a joke, look at Harper slithering around behind closed doors on the issue of eliminating the borders between Mexico, U.S., and Canada. That is an important enough issue to have a referenda on, but will the public get a say? No...we are too stupid, we do not know what is good for us, let the business leaders decide for us, but who are they looking after? lol This is like a b grade movie, starring Harper and Bush, two clowns in positions of authority, who would be better suited to perhaps run a circus, not countries, but to be fair, I do not think it would matter much who was in power, they know who their masters are, and they are well trained little mutts.

paulbk1977, have you ever heard "Ballad of the Axe"?

http://www.waitingformartin.ca/videos/hatchet.html

Tommy Douglas coerced Lester B Pearson to pass the Medical Care Act of 1966 - where the Federal Government would pay 50% of Health Care costs but Health Care would be run by the provinces. Paul Martin slashed the transfer payments in the early 90's when he was PM Jean Cretien's Finance Minister (one of the reasons why the Federal Government keeps having all those surpluses). By the time Roy Romanow wrote his report what the Federal government was paying was very little (can't remember the exact number) because Roy Romanow wanted them to increase it to 25%.

Bob Rae was the one who got caught with his pants down on that one since he took office just before this happened. Rae had already spent the transfer payments he thought he was getting and then they were slashed big. Bob Rae had to claw back wage increases he just gave and get rid of much of what he just started (and he did not have the smartest of Finance Ministers to help him do that with the most minimal disruption). And note that the Conservatives don't point to the more frugal NDP governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but only to Bob Rae.

Truth is that I have lost many many memories but did remember that it was 50-50 at one time. Thomas D'Aquino I should know and vaguely remember hearing it somewhere but I would have to look him up to comment. That is the good thing about the internet you can look things up as you type and appear smart.

paulbk1977 says: What I do remember is how corporations used to pay at least 50% of the tax revenues for this country, same in the U.S. What has happened to that notion?

It is like when you pay the same amount for a burger and fries and you end up with less fries. Then the Tax Payers Association and the Fraser Institute tell you that you are getting ripped off and that you can spend your own money better than government - the Conservatives reiterate that message and try their best to find waste in government. They sell it as tax breaks for the little guy but the little guy only gets pennies and the big guys rake it in.

BTW - what time tomorrow do you think the Cons will have their mini budget?

paulbk1977 says: The idea of democracy here is a joke, look at Harper slithering around behind closed doors on the issue of eliminating the borders between Mexico, U.S., and Canada.

The SPP conference in Montebello got next to no coverage in the US. Common Dreams did cover the Agents Provocateurs a few days later. However, I don't think the US media said anything about what the Three Amigos and 30 CEOs were up to - and don't tell me it was standardizing the jellybean. If previous SPP meetings were any indication, they were talking about harmonizing pesticide standards. Peter Julian of the NDP is the one to look up for trade issues and before that it was Bill Blaikie.

So who do you think has a greater chance of getting in - Kucinich or Jack Layton.

Now I remember where I heard the name "Thomas D'Aquino" - it was in a Linda McQuaig book - Cult of Impotence. I think he was a member of the cult.

Found it. At the time of the Romanow Report the Federal Government was paying 18.7% of Health Care costs and Roy Romanow wanted that level raised to 25%. It says so on page 69 of the Romanow Report:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/pdf/romanow/pdfs/HCC_Chapter_2.pdf

I just love that reflexive put-down of Moore, "..even those who are put off by Mr. Moore's less-than-subtle style..." Why can't such sensitive liberals get the idea that Moore is attempting to motivate and organize the uninsured of our country, forty percent of whom are at least functionally if not totally illiterate? All credit to him.

The Democrats, even with a President Kucinich and super-majorities in the house and senate will NEVER enact universal health care. Why? Because they take huge amounts of campaign donations from drug companies and for-profit health organizations.

They fund candidates for one primary reason: to NEVER enact universal, single payer, western european/canadian health care.

Further, there is historical evidence that the Democrats will never enact universal single-payer health care: They held majorities in the congress almost continuously from 1945 to 1994, and they CHOSE not to enact it. What were they waiting for?

Only one party supports universal, single-payer health care: The Green Party. Green candidates and the party take ZERO funding from corporate sources or PACS.

If you support universal health coverage, vote for the candidates and the party that will actually do something to make it happen - the Green Party, www.GP.org

brevity wrote, "When someone shouts "socialized medicine," just respond, "Yes, the kind our Congress has enjoyed for years."

No! It is not!

This "give us insurance like congress gets" is a deceptive scam.

As a federal government employee, I am covered by the same federal health care plan. Once a year, you pick from a menu of plans from the Big Insurance carriers and HMO's. They all entail paying an employee share of $$250 to $500 a month. If you are laid off, you get get coverage for a year - but you have pay the entire cost - about $1400-$2000 a month - while out of work.

In other words, it is just the same broken employment-based system that that private industry uses - specifically designed to keep the worker cowed and docile - exactly like, and for exactly the same purpose, as the totally inadequate, often nonexistent, family and sick leave and vacation benefits, that most private-sector workers get.

In the old days, any union would go immediately on strike if they were offered the "plan that Congress gets" in their contract.

So please, don't buy this "plan that Congress has" nonsense!

And for those who complain about raising taxes, exactly would you call the the big bucks you send to Big Insurance every paycheck?

Vaudree your comment about looking things up to appear smart is amusing to me.....it isn't about appearing smart at all! It is about learning as you go, to me that is the beauty of the internet, but you also have to be careful where you look, and verify your info. To answer your last question I would have no idea who has a better chance of getting into power, and to be honest, have become highly suspicious of any party here in Canada, or the US. The NDP here in British Columbia have shot themselves in the foot, Glenn Clark and his ferry fiasco is a prime example, how leaders get totally carried away with their own grandiose schemes, his intentions may have been good, but where was the common sense? For what he paid for those ferries it was reported he could have built more of the exisitng super ferries, but no, we had to have his notion of what a ferry should be, foolish idea, it comes down to plain common sense, getting the most bang for the dollar.
I should probably pay more attention to the details of politics, but I admit to being highly jaded when it comes to our modern day politicians. Too many have proven themselves to be corrupt, little toadies, obeying their true masters with tongue hanging out panting, sitting on their haunches, waiting for the next bone to be tossed their way. Do I sound too bitter? I admit it Vaudree, I remember Eric Kierans, and others like him, who while making a fortune, really cared about people, and wanted to do what was best for the country. If you can ever find a copy of Eric Kieran's book "Wrong End of the Rainbow" you would be interested in it, I am sure. Kierans talks about many things, he was Finance Minister at one point, and states in one section of his book that the government made the decision that to help our banks compete in the world, they would be given enormous breaks in many forms. They have become very wealthy, and continue to do well, and those breaks where paid for by the average citizen Vaudree. He talks about how capitalism was changed for the worse, he called it hijacking capitalism. So much of what happens here and in the US, is done at the expense of the average, and poor, and our leaders seem to have no qualms about doing so, regardless of the party. What does that say about the Democrats or Republicans? The Liberals or Conservatives? They know who their true masters are, it isn't the average person, it is their friends that make up the plutocracy. Look how in the U.S., it is nearly impossible to become president without having the support of the major corporations, how is that democracy? Who bites the hand that feeds it? The press is spineless in both countries, it is controlled by people who belong to the plutocracy. There are reporters who have been daring, and honest, and what happens to them? They don't last long, remember how Asper of the Canwest empire fired some editors and reporters, how his memos would state what was, and was not, up for comment in his media empire? Noam Chomsky once stated it isn't so much a conspiracy, as it is that these reporters learn how to play the game, they learn as they go, what is appropriate, and inappropriate to report or comment on. Those that control information make sure the public gets fed the info they deem acceptable, in a way that is more like pablum than steak and potatoes. It has no substance and very little value to me. I think there are good reporters, but they know too often, to tell the truth would jepordize their careers. Our system is based, and founded upon corruption and greed, not democracy, and this is what harms the average, and poor citizens, but it sure benefits those in high places.