This article is a fine example of the MSM guiding the conversation on healthcare. As noted above, Dennis Kucinich and single-payer not-for-profit coverage is NEVER mentioned. There is never any analysis made of what "universal coverage" actually means when it is spewed forth from the mouths of the various candidates. They act as if it is the exact same thing, regardless of the candidate and any differences in their plans.

Something else that jumped out at me was the comparison that health costs are increasing faster than inflation now, but not as badly as they were in Nixon's time. This makes it sound as though things were worse then. In actuality, we've had 30+ years of cumulative healthcare increases. The more proper comparison would be to take the percentage of income spent on healthcare in 1970 with the amount spent in 2005--we are definitely giving up a bigger chunk today.

Finally, I don't see a solution coming on healthcare (or global warming, or oil prices) until the other rich corporate forces decide to break ranks with their comrades. Once the retail, entertainment, food, etc. industries come to the realization that people aren't buying things because they spent it all on gas and doctors, they might demand some change. Their corporate dollars might hold some sway with our "representatives" that we average citizens have long since lost.

Socialized medicine, oh no! We have socialized military protection? socialized taxation, socialized police presence, socialized highway systems why doesn't everyone get health care? I'm sure that if, as in the case of gated communities and their private police forces, only the "financially carefree" could be looked out for by the military it would be so.

nspire,

I was trying to limit my response to one point, though I do concur with what you wrote. Corporations are profit-seeking automata, that will ride roughshod over all obstacles in their paths, including environmental protections, human rights, civil rights, democracy, peace, and even concerns for the very survival of the human race.

That corporations have achieved this level of power, and that they are constantly accumulating more power, threatens our lives and the future quality of our lives and especially that of our children and others who come after us. The corporate cancer has clearly metastasized and the patient's prognosis is bleak.

KIVALS - lets add to your response to OLE MODERATE, that the corporations are very well known for breaking the law, covering it up - and or paying to have it changed to their favor, AND

This country is founded upon people's rights -- not pseudo-corp entities' rights -- as they are drawn to inflict grievous harm on other countries and our Earth, soulessly riding WAR machine beast (over us ALL) in the name of profits.

While I agree that profits shared generously with those who produced them is laudable, it is the opposite trend now to force higher productively, pay less, provide lower benefits, and oppress more (because they've been given th KEYs to our Congress' minds).

Namaste
__ __ __ __ We must be the change
__ __ __ __ we wish to see in the world __ Gandhi

Ole Moderate,

You wrote:

"Corporations do what ever the law allows them to do in their pursuit of profits. Profits themselves are not bad - they help a lot of people pay their bills."

You are missing one part of the equation. As corporations have accumulated wealth over time, they have developed the ability to influence politicians to a greater and greater degree, and this has become a large self-regenerating feedback loop. The corporations gain more wealth and power, they influence politicians to write more laws in the corporations' interests, then the corporations gain even more wealth and power because of those laws, and they influence politicians even more to write laws even more in their interests, ...

peacemaker November 29th, 2007 9:20 am

Take that a step further peacemaker.

Any plan which would actually benefit and significantly help the American public as a whole is going to be deemed communist or socialism.

The people who fall for this nonsense, as I said above, deserve exactly what they get. They deserve to be ripped off.

The vast majority of the public is content, ignorant, or oblivious to being ripped of by big insurance and big pharma... and you even have about 25-30% of this country actively defending the corrupt practice. So, they deserve exactly what they get; they deserve to be shitted on and ripped off. They deserve to go bankrupt when the time comes. They can believe they have "insurance" and "choice" all they want... people like to think they have control, but when the time comes, and their bank accounts go kapoot, and/or a family member dies, they don't have to look any further than a mirror about who is to blame for the current situation.

Any plan to help American's with medical bills is going to be called Socialized Medicine by the Fascist's who are currently in charge! It doesn't make any difference how good the idea is, how workable it is or cheap it is. As long as it's something to help the American people it's going to be a major battle to get any of it in. Now if it were starting another war, let's say with Iran or even Syria. This bunch of ghouls would be Johnny on the Spot to support it! They would waste untold trillions to try and build some hapless middle eastern nation into what they want it to be. Why most voting American's even bother with this bunch is beyond me? They don't give a s... about anything but their profit's and big business gouging their own countrymen one more time. But, American's listen to the right wing venom machine and believe every word that comes out of it. They will slit their own throats before they will dump this bunch of fascist's. So, American's have what they want. A cold society that doesn't care if people are homeless, starving or abused. All they care about is their sorry selves! So universal health care is a moot subject in this country. It's never going to happen until people rid this country of rabid Republican's and start living up to the image they have created for themselves. Most American's see themselves as a very giving people! In some ways we are. But, in other ways we aren't! Health care in this country sucks. It's a product of the Republicanism that is raping our country. We are going to have to change our philosophy about life before health care happens.

pleasethink wrote:If Americans overwhelmingly support single payer (I didn't know this–thanks), why are Hillary/Obama/Edwards leading in the primaries?

Because the majority of Americans (including people who call themselves Democrats) haven't even heard of Dennis Kucinich. That's the whole point. It takes massive corporate funding just to be known to the general electorate. Combine this with the fact that the mainstream media has an obligation (to their sponsors) to keep people like DK off the radar. Comments on CD don't represent the average American not to mention the viewership is minuscule compared to any major network or publication.

That reminds me, does anyone know how many people actual do visit CD each day?

I have a suggestion that may create more TRUE debate and lessen the personal attacks on individual posters. We should AT LEAST ATTEMPT to criticize and analyze the IDEAS and not include personal attacks against the poster presenting his//her view point. Simply identify the presenter and move on. It seems to make for much easier reading, greater objectivity and an increased desire to present ones theory, even if it's fairly off the wall. Personal attacks and harsh remarks just serve to stop the conversation.

I just qualified for Medicare this year ending a two decades plus health insurance dry spell. My husband didn't make it through. The only problem I have with everyone getting Medicare is that they're going to still want you to buy the supplemental Medigap insurance and the drug insurance picked from a long, long list of insurers with assorted plans and their assorted exceptions. Then you layer in the Medicaid to help the people on the lower income side, another coverage. For dental, vision and hearing care there may yet be another layer, all with their assorted plans, co-pays and odd requirements for staying qualified. If you have a chronic dental condition requiring thousands of dollars to treat you're probably not going to be covered. If you broke a tooth, you're covered. And don't forget the layers of home care and therapies, equipment, dressings, etc. that may or may not be covered. I used to go to yard sales in search of sterile dressings. Then there is the boogaboo of mental health care. Now that's really crazy. If onset is before 21, you're covered. After 21, forget it. Homeless ain't so bad. Basically, what I'm saying is that everything has been so splintered by decades of efforts to patch the mess that we have a Gordian knot to untie.

Has anyone but me noticed that whenever a "leader" emerges who is building momentum to actually break the stranglehold corporatations and their media lackeys have on politics he dies? The last one was Paul Wellstone, dead in a mysterious small plane crash.

Evil always profits in the US. Do we really think there is no place to house the homeless? Is it really that hard to get a health care system as good as Italy's? Could it be more obvious that the war in Iraq was an illegal attempt to seize oil fields?

Do a majority of U.S. voters really believe that Hillary is going to be better than Bush when she votes for every war promoting bill that passes her way?

Americans are idiots and deserve what they get.

Dear Steve,

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/012907CARMICHAEL.shtml
________________________

"We cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons," he declared, endorsing America's current approach of working with the Europeans using diplomatic levers.

But he said the "carrots" on offer have to come with heavy pressure, such as "serious sanctions."

In terms of the "stick" of military strikes, he said, "I would never take any option off the table."

Too bad your boy doesn't feel that way about Israel...THE terrorist nation of the Middle East
_______________________________
"Israel is in the unfortunate position of having to act without an agreement. I think American [officials] are supportive of that and want to be helpful in that effort - including me," John Edwards
_________________
The visit, Edward's second, included a helicopter tour surveying the route of the security barrier, the northern border and the Golan Heights.

"It gave a very physical sense of the threat the Israeli people face every day," he said.

The trip was arranged by the American-Israel Education Foundation, an AIPAC sister organization.
_________________

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/feb/01/hillary_and_edwards_to_compete_at_aipac_obamas...

* Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are scheduled to be at tonight's AIPAC fundraiser in New York, looking for support with Jewish activists.
____________________________________

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php
______________________________

What is mind-boggling to remember at times like this is that Clinton and Edwards both voted in favor of the war in Iraq.

At the time, Edwards said that Saddam Hussein was "the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Now, Clinton and Edwards want to be president and have to explain how they - by their own standards - made such a grievous error.

They will tell you that the intelligence they relied upon was shaky. No weapons of mass destruction were found. They never intended the war to be so ineptly run. And they didn't expect it to go on this long.

But the great thing about a presidential campaign is that all the nuances candidates use to muddy their record on essential issues fall away.

All that are left are the simple, basic facts.

In this case, it is that Clinton and Edwards voted for the war when it was popular. They supported it until their support threatened their political careers, and then they stopped supporting it.

It's too soon to tell if their about-face was in time to save their own political skins. But one thing is for sure. It's too late for all those young men and women who have already paid their last full measure.

New York Post 8/24/07

______________________________

Steve I don't want to accuse you of not doing research, but there are thousands of these available for your own research purposes.

Any person who sees through the corporate/AIPAC smokescreen that Israel is doing to the Palestinians what we did to the Native Americans...except that now manifest destiny is not acceptable policy and the UN didn't order us to give back the land to the Native Americans dozens of times

(Oh, belated Happy For Not Kicking All Of The Illegal Immigrants Out in 1610 Day)

can not, in good conscious support a corporate AIPAC whore like John Edwards.

steveMick

unfortunately John edwards still uses the retoric "protect American Assets", which means we Ain't getting out of Iraq anytime soon, like anytime at all, and his healthcare proposal like the other two, keeps private third party profiteers in the money..It all comes back to Dennis Kucinich..he says out of Iraq now, which was why the Democratic congress is a majority..weak, but a majority..and getting rid of for-profit health care ..period! someone mentioned a revolution..well, people are going to have to fight for their rights in a babylon system..it's a fraud and needs to be replaced..

I see a lot of corporate bashing. Corporations do what ever the law allows them to do in their pursuit of profits. Profits themselves are not bad - they help a lot of people pay their bills.

I do not see how a for profit health insurer can have the patient's best interests in mind.

Our laws allow corporations to fund political advertisement for candidates (through PACs and direct donations). Our laws allow anyone with the means to lobby our government. The more means, the more listening.

The root cause is weak legislation by our representatives (on both sides of the isle). Such weak and self serving legislation is what has made our representatives beholden to whomever approaches with a lot of cash.

We can have legislation that directs funds into a single payer system. We can have government that works for our whole country instead of for a select few.

Like most of you, I am also disappointed with the choices of candidates and the past decisions of our representatives.

We need some strong leaders that will make decisions that are best for our country. We need leaders that will decide to limit not how much funding they can accept, but how much they can spend.

If they outlawed spending for politcal ads, the news media would eventually give them chances to air their psoitions just to bring in advertising dollars. I do not know why no one has thought of that. Some politicians claim to dislike begging for money - something like this could be their way out if they are sincere.

Since the government is ours and the media are ours, they could even mandate free time on the various media to allow all serious candidates to pitch thier positions.

I do not know who to trust, I am leaning toward John Edwards because he seems to have some perspective I do not think the two leading Dems have. The republicans have nothing to offer. I think Clinton or Kucinich would drive fence sitters over to the right and we would be on the way to 4-8 more years of fun.

RichM writes:

>"Serious reform of the health care system would cut across the profit interests of insurance giants, drug companies, & HMO's.... Stopping the wars would cut across the profit interests of the military-industrial complex.... Doing something about global warming would cut across the profit interests of the oil companies. You can't win a political battle against a powerful entity like that, in the US political system."

So now we know what RichM's plan forward is. He wants nothing less than to scrap "the US political system." How you gonna do that, Rich? You got AK-47s and gas masks stockpiled in your garage? We gonna storm the steps of the Capitol and take power in the streets?

How many people here want Richie's little revolution fantasy?

How many think this is a realistic plan to get single-payer health care here in [whatever the name of the country would be after the RichM Party takes power]?

And how many can make sense of this analysis:

> "In other words, all these problems derive from capitalism's essential nature. The US political system permits only a choice between 2 big parties — both of which exist only to protect the interests of the capitalist class. Thus, as long as politics is confined to operating within that 2-party framework, solutions to problems which are caused by capitalism are "off the table.""

Whoah, dude. Somehow capitalism and "2 big parties" (as opposed to 1 or 3 or 75) are inextricably linked? Two is the number of "capitalism" then? I guess communism must be what you have when there is only 1 party, eh? What would a 3-party system be?

Besides untenable under the present US electoral system, I mean.

But of course, RichM is going to change all those laws with his little BB gun and his broadsheets. What's the name of yours, Richie? Marxist Worker Leninist Red Star Socialist Whatever?

Okay, people, that's what RichM is peddling.

COMarc has another plan:

> "Leave the Democratic party, and build our own party. We can all go join the Green Party (what I've done), or we can go start a different party."

Exactly how many parties are "we" supposed to be starting here, Marc? How much disunity are you aiming for? And how exactly is this supposed to defeat the rightward march of US politics?

> "We know for a fact that if we elect Democrats, we'll be in Iraq for as long as we can see. We know for a fact that as long as we elect Democrats we'll get band-aid health care plans that do more to protect corporate profits than give us decent affordable health care. We know for a fact that if we elect Democrats we get trade deals and tax plans that favor the wealthy and corporations."

That's a lot of "We know for a fact"s. Actually, I don't know any of those "facts" about "Democrats." Some Democrats are already out and on record in support of single-payer, and many more in support of "affordable health care" (which I'm surprised would be enough for you). Many are opposed to continuing the current wars and some are pretty consistently antiwar. Many favor more progressive tax strategies and some are opposed to trade deals, especially without labor, environment, and consumer protections.

But not all Democrats are on our side on these issues. The Party as a whole is perhaps better characterized by COMarc:

> "The Democrats support and protect and defend the people who fund their campaigns. If you've got hundreds of thousands of dollars to give to the Democrats, they'll start to give a damn about you."

But why is that? What do "the Democrats" do with those hundreds of thousands of dollars? SPEND THEM ON TV AND RADIO ADVERTISING. TO WIN VOTES.

IT'S THE VOTES, STUPID.

Money is not the basic currency of politics. VOTES ARE.

So, let's say you are a great leader of men and women, and you can organize a great grassroots campaign which will be able to deliver voters to the voting booth on election day. Enough to win an election.

So you get your voters to go to the polls on primary day. And vote for PROGRESSIVE candidates for the DEMOCRATIC NOMINATIONS for whatever offices are at stake.

Let's say you had enough voters mobilized that you could have won the general election running candidates as Green Party or whatever. Since that is several times as many as it takes to win Democratic primaries, CONGRATULATIONS, your candidates are now the Democratic nominees! Repeat this feat across the nation, and YOU OWN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!

Oh, but let's say maybe you only succeeded in mobilizing a small number of voters, say, 5% of the general electorate, or 3% like Mr. Nader got. That's a lot, but probably your candidates didn't all win the Democratic primaries, although probably a few of them did.

Now you can go to the Democratic Party corporate shills and say, Look, we can deliver X million votes on election day, how about we make a deal here?

How many dollars is a million votes worth to the Democratic Party?

But COMarc tells us that

> "The Democrats take our support for granted,"

Do they? Who's support do they take for granted? Not COMarc's, nor his friends in the Green and various Red parties. They can just write him off. And they do.

When progressives are organized independently as a constituency group, we will be able to act within the Democratic Party and wield influence in proportion to the number of votes we can deliver on election day. If we can deliver those votes do Democrats, we will be able to bargain and get access in between elections. If we only deliver votes to losing third-party candidates, we will be able to be written off.

That's the US political system. Play it to win.

STAR - we're GO for launch in ~ T-431 days, momentum is building too slowly for much earlier change than that. Thank you and shine on!

Namaste
__ __ __ __ We must be the change
__ __ __ __ we wish to see in the world __ Gandhi

All good points have already been made----what I am noticing is that there is a kind of momentum building----a change is taking shape. The absence of anything remotely representing the broad range of perspectives,in the MSM has become more obvious to more viewers everyday. Fairness and accuracy in reporting is becoming a national joke, and not just re; Faux News.

It is very challenging for those of us who get information on the Internet to observe the spreading corporatism going mostly unchecked by anything that most folks access on a daily basis. We understand instinctively that more people are begining to hurt enough to want change, but they haven't yet connected all the dots,(how can they if they watch MSM?) thus they are not yet sure how to confront this growing threat to their sense of any sort of security.

The sickcare system, contrary to appearances is NOT sustainable. IMO, the medical industrial complex are working desperately to delay the inevitable demise of this profit based healthcare delivery. system that enriches them.

They know that the majority of the American people want single payer Universal health care. They know that claiming otherwise will be exposed for the lie that it is. If we had a healthy functioning Fourth Estate, the current system would have collapsed long ago. People would demand it. Instead the "players" cranked out more lies to confuse and divide the people, so nothing got done.

The crisis so many people now sense personally, did not happen overnite and there were so many contributing factors . But the end, they all came down to one thing the ruling corporate bottom line. Unions were busted, good jobs outsourced, benefits stripped from workers,and de-regulation combined to drive more and more people to the edge.

The time has come to face what IS. The MSM exists to support the status quo, not to inform, and for certain, not to rock the boat. There is no uncontaminated message coming from that poisoned well. and all must be assumed to be propaganda. We already realize that candidates promoting real change who are in sync with the majority of the electorate, rather than with the corporations. will be consistently marginalized, ridiculed, or outright silenced. CAN IT GET ANY CLEARER?

Stop believing anything the corporate medfia tells you-----they are not operating in our interests. What they call the news is intended to keep us apathetic, divided and ignorant. This house of cards will eventually collapse, and we can speed its demise by tuning out and working together for change without any expectation ofaccurate reports as to our successes or failures. Let us move forward and decide for ourselves whether we are just a "fringe far left" element. Evidence gathered by sources with no dog in the race, often tell us otherwise.

Ignore the corporate media brainwashing.

Vote for Kucinich in the primary.

It's all talk, talk, talk and no "do". This issue has been going on for far too many years. In the meantime, thousands of our citizens are without health insurance coverage. I guess our legislators just like to talk about it a lot. Why should they worry about people struggling to make ends meet? They have full health insurance converage for the rest of their lives. These legislators like to talk a big line but, in fact, they really don't give a damn in spite of all their fancy words and empty promises. The market driven system we have now just isn't working. Everytime our legislators are questioned about the system they come up with the same old lame answers and crocodile tears.

The best way to provide affordable healthcare for all is to ABOLISH THE DEA, END THE DRUG WAR, AND LEGALIZE CANNABIS !

There is nothing quite like an economics journalist/generalist spouting off about subject matter of which he has the depth of knowledge of a thimble ... except maybe ... academics and political consultants removed from, in this case, the realities confronted by healthcare consumers, non-consumers (for lack of the financial means), purchasers, and providers. The latter are those who have become the architects of insurance-creep under the guise of 'universal healthcare' for both Democratic and GOP Presidential aspirants. All of them have marvelous healthcare coverage provided by their universities, firms, and think-tanks.

Meanwhile, those of us with more substantial insights and experience in healthcare delivery and policy warranty three premises:
1. Single-payer healthcare is the only vehicle to ensure affordable access, consistent quality, patient safety, and cost-effective delivery.
2. Socialized medicine is the U.K. system, which owns the brick and mortar of the system. Government need not be property managers. Government needs to be the sole source of funding and control over shenanigans of every conceivable nature, which are inherent in a market-driven healthcare system.
3. Unless and until those in the spotlight with platforms begin to discuss in depth FRAUD, WASTE, CORRUPTION, and ABUSE, the public will remain clueless to 95% of the unconscionable facts of America's healthcare non-system. 5% of the problems are on the table --- insurance-creep and pharmaceutical price-gouging. 95% of the issues have yet to be introduced to the national conversation in a serious way.

Unfortunately, the national debate is devoid of shock value and remains politically palatable. Insurance-creep and the rest of the irrational elements will be cost-prohibitive, fanciful, and destined to fail in establishing a true national healthcare system.

ets, you're right - "Harry and Louise" died due to lack of healthcare, plus their kids lost their jobs (to overseas workers) and can't afford to cover health costs themselves nor for their children either... Somehow I don't think H&L's descendants will be voting for Ron Paul.

As an addendum to what I wrote earlier re: Congress and HR 676, I want to add "do not lose heart"! 87 Members of Congress (all Democrats) are co-sponsoring HR 676. Would it surprise you to learn that those 87 members have close to 100% lifetime pro-worker voting records? It's the Republicrats that need to have the fear of the electorate put in them.

Oh, and I've been around the block a time or two. I've been a union member for 41 years (now retired) and have been active in politics and the struggle for social and economic justice, and peace, my whole adult life. I am currently a member of the state Democratic central committee. As far as I know, WA is the only state party to endorse HR 676. One of our Members of Congress is listening (McDermott) the rest are ignoring us. In my Congressional District I'll be writing a in the name of a real Democrat to replace the incumbent Republicrat..

Ike,

I thank you for the information you provided on global warming, and I admire and share your passion, but I resent your assumption that people on this blog are misdirected and aren't thinking about it too. To make the obvious point, we're talking about health care here because that's what the article is about. I was probably wrong to say that health insurance is the biggest domestic issue because global warming is right up there too. And obviously health and the environment are related. But again, I admire your passion and capital letters.

Another point: some people think talk is cheap, but I think the more we discuss these things out loud with friends and strangers, the better chance we have of creating a new country, one that emerges out from under suffocating MSM blanket.

Ike kay: "FORGIVE THE UPPER CASE PRESENTATION BECAUSE I WANT IT TO CATCH YOUR EYE AND I WANT TO TRY TO INFORM YOU."

Sorry, dude, the minute I see all caps in a forum, I scroll down to the next post. This case was no exception, though it was a heck of a long scroll.

Ah, the next Republican talking point from Democrat sychophant mounths. This time, the "there is no alternative" talking point. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

The alternative is obvious. Leave the Democratic party, and build our own party. We can all go join the Green Party (what I've done), or we can go start a different party.

Yes it will take work and effort. And no, its not a magic bullet that will create instant change in 5 sec so we can go back to watching TV.

But it is a path that would lead to real change.

The key is, we absolutely positively know that the Democrats do not represent us, support us or really even give a damn about us except that they want our votes. We know for a fact that if we elect Democrats, we'll be in Iraq for as long as we can see. We know for a fact that as long as we elect Democrats we'll get band-aid health care plans that do more to protect corporate profits than give us decent affordable health care. We know for a fact that if we elect Democrats we get trade deals and tax plans that favor the wealthy and corporations.

Its obvious folks. The Democrats support and protect and defend the people who fund their campaigns. If you've got hundreds of thousands of dollars to give to the Democrats, they'll start to give a damn about you. But the constant message by the actions the Democrats take is that the rest of us can go get screwed if we get in the way of the policies that make their big donors money.

It makes no sense for anyone else to support the Democrats, because the Democrats have long since given up on supporting us. This stopped being FDR's Democratic coalition at least 20 years ago. To pretend that today's Democrats give a damn about anything other than protecting corporate profits is nonsense.

So, its time for us to build and work for our own interests. Its time to create and build a political movement that will work to protect and help us succeed. By building our own movement, we can create structures within that movement that support grassroots democracy. We can build a movement that deliberately limits the influence that big donations can have on the policies of the movement.

Or, you can listen to the Democrats, believe that there is no alternative, and keep doing the same things and getting exactly the same results as we get today. Or worse, because as Nader2000 has admitted, a track record of supporting the Democrats and trying to stay within that party has only made things worse. The Democrats take our support for granted, and as long people remain within the party, they'll get worse and worse under the belief that there is no alternative.

The reason Harry and Louise was effective against Hillary's first corporate-protection health care plan was because that plan was horrendously over-complicated. And the reason it was horrendously over-complicated was because Hillary bent over backwards to make sure that corporate interests and profits were protected by the plan. Thus the plan became complicated to an ordinary American who just wanted to choose their own doctor and get health care.

If Hillary had instead supported a basic single-payer plan, where she could just tell the American people this .... you can go to any doctor or hospital you choose, and then the bill is picked up by one national health care agency, and that all of this will be cheaper than the existing system because of lower admin costs, and you won't have to deal with insurance companies that try to make money by denying care .... that plan could have been sold convincingly to the American people.

That plan could have built the popular support to defeat the corporate drive to kill health care reform. Since Hillary's plan was a plan to protect the corporations, it didn't have the popular support needed to defend it.

So now the excuse is that since that plan lost, we need a plan even more tilted to protecting corporate profits. Ie, we need a requirement in law that we all MUST become corporate consumers.

Do you know people who are adamantly opposed to having health insurance? I don't. I know people whose jobs won't give them health care and who can't afford a plan on their own. But I don't know people who don't want it at all. So what is a requirement that all people must carry health insurance solving?

To me, its just a profit-protection mechanism for a health care insurance industry that's already ripping us off. But they can bribe Hillary with contributions so she'll force us to be their customers.

I suppose history will write that we were a society ultimately governed by people who greatly disrepected life and the planet on which we lived. At best this is a joke and such folly -- at worst -- a tragic waste.

HR 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act was first introduced in Congress several years ago.

Under Republican leadership the bill languished in committee.

Under Democratic leadership the bill is STILL languishing in committee!

Why? Because of open transoms in Congressional offices! Let me explain: The health care industry lobs bags full of money through the open transoms in the dead of night. Lobbying dollars from insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies, and companies owning for-profit hospitals rain down on Congress.

Why won't the powers that be give HR 676 and open and honest hearing? Because the transoms are open! Until we demand that Congress close those transoms and then start representing us, those of us who are lucky enough to have health care will continue struggling to keep it, while the unlucky ones (the uninsured) will continue dying at the rate of 18,000 people each year.

Some Democrats in Congress believe that working people have nowhere else to go. They will, as a result of that belief, continue to ignore us. While I hold scant hope that the GOP will ever do the right thing (and anyway, I cannot think of a a situation in which I'd vote Republican) I can foresee writing in the name[s] of a person[s] who would represent working class America.

Lawmakers fear ballot box revenge. It's up to us to put that fear in them!
Write you Member of Congress. Demand open and honest hearings on HR 676.

Hillary Clinton is pushing accomodation of corporations in her health proposals because she hasn't forgotten "Harry and Louise" (even though at least one cartoonist has pointed out that Harry died of a pre-existing condition years ago and Louise then died in the struggle to pay Harry's medical bills.)

Elect your Democrats to both Congress (in staggering numbers) and The White House, then DEMAND the health plan you want. There is nothing in stone that says "campaign" plans ever actually get enacted.

Elect your Republicans by default, and lose your family savings to Health Care, Inc. ---all your savings, and by the same dumb default.

If Americans overwhelmingly support single payer (I didn't know this--thanks), why are Hillary/Obama/Edwards leading in the primaries? Democrats have the candidate, Kucinich, who will bring them what they overwhelmingly support, and yet most don't support the candidate who will bring them what they supposedly want. Can someone explain the contradiction?

Ets: I believe Harry and Louise are currently sleeping in cardboard boxes after Harry got cancer and the cost of the co-pay on their medical bills caused them to lose their homes.

" . . . the idiotic refusal of most Americans to fail to support Kucinich's plan for universal healthcare through an extension of Medicare for all is just another example of Americans getting precisely the democracy they deserve . . ."

Americans do by and large support Single Payer. If the Kucinich Conyers plan was on the ballot, it would win a landsline approval. Our misrepresentatives on the other hand are owned and funded by the insurance lobby and major corporations and that is who they represent.

No one needs health insurance. What we need is health CARE!
Dennis Kucinich 2008/2012
The only one that gets it because he is the only one that wants to get it.
It is amazing how many articles on healthcare, Iraq, impeachment etc. manage to never mention him. Reporters must get paid NOT to mention him the way HMO's pay doctors not to treat patients.

The wealthy used to refer to people like FDR as a 'traitor to their class'. That's how I take the comment that anyone who votes for the pro-corporate Democrats is a 'traitor'.

Anyone who votes for these candidates is voting against their best interests, and against the best interests of others in the same boat with them. Perhaps 'traitor to themselves' is a better way of phrasing it. But I get the point the commenter was trying to make.

Edwards is the closest of these three to now having more progressive positions on these issues. The only problem is, this is new to him in the last couple of years during this Presidential run. He doesn't have the voting record from his days in the Senate to back it up. So, can you believe it? Or is it just a political calculation that Hillary had the far right and Obama had the center-right positions locked up, so Edwards needed to move just a bit left and try to get union support to have a viable campaign. And will he really govern like this? Or would he be another Bill Clinton who talked ok in the '92 campaigns but then suddenly became pro-Wall Street and pro-corporate once in office?

Since Edwards doesn't have the voting record to back up what he's saying these days, its hard to tell. He sounds almost decent somedays. But the (D) after his name stands for liar, so who can really tell.

COMarc: Why don't you tell us what your credible political strategy is to get single-payer universal health insurance?

Dem-bashing is basically all you do. The trouble with this is you do not have a credible alternative to working through the Democratic Party. We can agree that the Left's influence in the Party has weakened over the past decades. Your prescriptions would weaken us further. Why do you prescribe poison?

No, just tell us, what's your plan?

Polling data cited by Chomsky continually shows a nice majority of Americans supporting a single-payer health system. That's as true today as it was in the 70's.

Its not the electorate that's more conservative. Its that the Democrats no longer listen to the electorate. Instead they just listen to their big contributors and thus its the Democrats that are far more conservative today.

A solidly Democrat Congress and a Democrat in the White House would be as big an obstacle to single payer health care as Republicans in control of both. Face it, the Democrats don't care what we think and they certainly are not going to give us single-payer health care. AND THEY ARE TELLING US THIS LOUD AND CLEAR. All we have to do is listen. And then vote for our best interests instead of voting for what's best for the Democrats.

And do the Demoocratic sychophants think we are stupid? Is their argument really that we should support candidates who oppose what we believe in, and offer plans that are the opposite of what we want in the strange faith-based belief that they will do something different in office?

Are we really supposed to believe that once elected the Democrats will turn around and screw the big contributors who've financed their campaign ... and whom the Democrats expect to finance their next campaign? Yeah right, big insurance companies and HMO's are going to pour millions of campaign contributions into candidatss that are going to suddenly turn around and give us single-payer health care once elected.

Do these Democratic sycophants think we are that stupid to believe this? Are they so desparate that this bottom of the barrel ridiculous level of reasoning is the best they can come up with these days as why we should continue to vote Democrat?

Can anyone offer any examples from the last 20 years where a Democrat was elected and turned out to be far more progressive than what they appeared to be in the campaign? We certainly aren't short of examples of Democrats who talked progressive in a campaign only to govern pro-war and pro-corporate once elected. Are we now supposed to believe that the opposite is going to happen if we all line up and vote Hillary?

More than anything, this line of argument says the Democrats think we are fools. And given our track record of voting for Democrats who do absolutely nothing for us once elected, and who call us 'idiot liberals' instead ... I guess I can see why the Democrats would think we are indeed fools.

Prove to the Democrats we are not fools. STOP VOTING DEMOCRAT!

For me, the idiotic refusal of most Americans to fail to support Kucinich's plan for universal healthcare through an extension of Medicare for all is just another example of Americans getting precisely the democracy they deserve. It does no good for the few to see the light--we just get dragged along for the idiotic ride. This is such a prime example of Americans voting against their own best interests. If healthcare was universal, so many Americans could free up their time and money to be productive in other ways; new, small businesses could form more easily; and unions could stop making healthcare the main issue at every negotiation and could focus on improving the lot of workers in other ways.

Oh, but then again, maybe that's why the likes of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards want to keep the worrisome, for-profit plan that keeps so many Americans on the edge...they too want us on the edge, because if we weren't, we might be able to fight for true equality.

This issue makes me sick to my stomach (but I better not get too sick, or be proved to have stomach sickness as a pre-existing condition).

Watch for "Harry and Louise" to rise from the grave.

Anyone hear an echo hear? Remember when anyone who criticized Bush and his policies was condemmed for "bush-bashing' or as "bush-haters." Note how the Democrats are now using the exact same tactic.

Scratch a Democrat and under the phony skin coloring that appears to make them look different, you'll find instead that they are identical to the Republicans.

There were some excellent studies in the 90's showing how the Nixon administration could be viewed as more liberal than the Democrats under Bill and Hillary. Take this as another point on that trend. What the Democrats are peddling these days used to be what the worst that Nixon would propose 40 years ago.

That just shows how far right, and how far from their progressive base the Democrats have traveled.

This piece wants to use that to bash the Republicans for opposing it. What it should be telling the Democratic base is how far from them the leaders of this faux opposition party have moved.

Hillary Clinton is owned by big insurance interests. Requiring that we buy insurance is the kind of idiocy that only the bourgoise mind can concoct. Kucinich has demonstrated his commitment to a single payer plan. He consistently demonstrates that he is the best (maybe the only) candidate for a rational civilized modern America.

I fail to understand why this story is even news, let alone the top banner on CD this afternoon. It seems just another excuse for Dem-bashing.

The health care proposals advanced by Democratic presidential candidates on the campaign trail are well known and so are their inadequacies. Kucinich alone has stood for single-payer. What the others say is not terribly important at this point. None of them can afford to throw down the gauntlet to the insurance industry by proposing to abolish private health care insurance.

We are not going to get single-payer through electing a president who promises to give it to us. If we elect a president who promises to ensure "universal coverage," and meanwhile build a movement calling for single-payer, then maybe that president once elected would quietly encourage such a movement and at some opportune moment could come out for single-payer or an approach that will lead to single-payer. It would be a huge fight, and only with the backing of a solidly Democratic Congress could that president possibly succeed in enacting a transition to single-payer, that is, abolishing one of the largest cash-cow industries in the United States.

The fact that the 1970s were a more progressive time than any until now, and accordingly many of the things Nixon did or proposed are comparable to things the Democrats propose today, is not news; nor is the fact that what the Republicans are proposing and doing are further to the Right than Barry Goldwater.

To all pathetic dummies counseling "working through the Democratic Party" --

Serious reform of the health care system would cut across the profit interests of insurance giants, drug companies, & HMO's. You can't win a political battle against powerful entities like that, in the US political system.

Stopping the wars would cut across the profit interests of the military-industrial complex. You can't win a political battle against a powerful entity like that, in the US political system.

Doing something about global warming would cut across the profit interests of the oil companies. You can't win a political battle against a powerful entity like that, in the US political system.

Does anyone notice the pattern, here?

All these terrible problems are caused by giant corporations pursuing their own profit interests. It's in the corporations' nature, to do this. In other words, all these problems derive from capitalism's essential nature. The US political system permits only a choice between 2 big parties -- both of which exist only to protect the interests of the capitalist class. Thus, as long as politics is confined to operating within that 2-party framework, solutions to problems which are caused by capitalism are "off the table."

It's not possible to work within a framework entirely dedicated to protecting capitalism, & hope to solve problems which derive from the basic nature of capitalism.

Left of Left wrote: "Any progressive/liberal, any Democrat, who votes for the Wal-Mart Witch, AIPAC Edwards or Obomba Obama is a traitor"
I'm all for using hyperbole to make a point but...
Traitor?!!

I'm an Edwards supporter - if John is Mr. AIPAC then why does he favor pulling troops out of Iraq and oppose attacking Iran? His benefactors must be pretty pissed about his policy positions huh?

Steve

Recently revealed video records of Richard Nixon, showed that this was in alliance with the Medical Insurance Industry and that Richard Nixon was laughing because it was a way to "fool" the American people to believe they were getting coverage where in fact it was meant to booster the Medical Insurance Industry. Hillary is following suit. She has been a Republican in her past and still is presently no matter what she calls herself.

Corporatized Medicine? In my opinion:

Our EPA allows poisons in our food, water and air that are not permitted in the EU.
When we and our children succome to this toxic onslaught there are the Corporate Drug Lords to grossly overcharge us for their snake oil and other false hopes. Our Corporate Loan Sharks are right there with debtors prison should any of us overspend a credit card paying to cure Tiny Tim.
All the world's sane nations not only provide some sort of national health care but also carefully regulate the things that are put into their food, water and air because they must pay for the consequences.
Those people that cry 'Socialized Medicine' are really demanding the license to murder, maim and plunder. Our Corporate Funded Congress has passed laws to make this so. Perhaps a small revolution is the solution.

Kevin G. Hall, Bush's biographer to be?

Yet another article studiously avoiding the mention of Dennis Kucinich ! It's becoming a regular occupation of CD comment writers to have to point out these omissions.

Until stigma is removed from the word "socialized" I doubt much will improve with regard to health care in the USA. I wonder what it'd take?

The truth is Nixon proposed 'health maintenance organizations' (HMO's) as an alternative to undercut Edward Kennedy's legitimate universal health care proposal.

Nixon succeeded; that's why we have HMOs everywhere today; of course they don't do what he said they would do; pretty much everything he said including everything that's quoted in this article was a lie. Additional lies are quoted here to give a semblance of truth to a complete historical distortion of the truth.

All of the plans currently proposed by the Democrats provide better and more comprehensive care than anything Nixon would've been interested in implementing.

What a joke! This is another example of the Medical Industrial Complex setting the agenda. No mention of universal health coverage by Dennis Kucinich in which the "for profit" industry will be eliminated. No mention of the Canadian style health system which Paul Krugman (Princeton economist/NY Times columnist)advocates and that over 99% of Canadians love. No mention that the majority of bankruptcies in America today are a result of illness or injury. No mention of the fact that 'socialized medicine' already exists in the U.S. (the armed forces) because no one in their right mind would enlist if the government didn't provide it. No mention of the fact that every industrialized country in the world except the U.S. has universal health coverage.
I'm afraid than Kevin Hall is playing right into the corporate agenda by failing to address the huge deficiencies in the current system, the failure to mention the only candidate (Kucinich) who advocates a non-private system and finally the massive influence (political contributions to Democrats and Republicans) of the health industry to prevent even the discussion of such fundamental issues like private versus public health systems.
This article could have been written by Fox News as far as I am concerned.