Forcing people to buy insurance insures the insurance industry.

Medicare for all is single-payer with the government as the insurer. Insurance companies are shut out of providing this type of health insurance (although they would be free to provide other types of insurance). Also, the government plan is non-profit. Imagine, concern for health and not profit.

Well, Duh... I wonder now WHO might propose such a solution? Hmmm.... what? Dennis Kucinich?! Well well, then I wonder why Iowa and now NBC are locking him out? (actully Iowa was more insurance related - now its the MIC interests i.e. GE). Probably related also.

This is another reason for folks to call and write to NBC, demanding that Kucinich be added to the debate tonight! He is the ONLY candidate who is clearly advocating on behalf of a Medicare-like single payer universal health care package. Anyone with half a brain knows this is the most cost-effective method of delivering quality care to the most people at the least cost to the people. The ONLY reason why it is not adopted is because it will put out of work a lot of very wealthy individuals who basically collect exorbitant profits, primarily from the under-insured and uninsured, while paying essentially zero taxes.

If insurance companies made over $57 billion in profits without mandates how much will they make if everyone is required to buy insurance? $80 billion, $100 billion?

What service do insurance companies provide us? As far as I can tell all they do is deny us needed health care. So we should pay them $100 billion so they can deny us health care? That's not a very good deal.

Call, write and/or email your congressman and senators and tell them you want single payer health care.

Kucinich needs help paying for the recount. It will cost close to $65,000. I just made my donation.

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/help-defend-the-integrity-of-our-voting-system/

Red Flags over New Hampshire
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71287.html?1200414215

Evidence of fraud?: Paired Precinct Study of 2008 Democratic NH primary
http://electionarchive.org/ucvData/NH/DemPrimary2008-PairedPrecinctStudy.pdf

The Democrats are running Romney's plan in Massachusetts now, even as Obama and Hillary debate spreading that plan around the country further. What a total mess the Democratic Party is!

We need a real health care system now. Nothing that is being done in Massachusetts is anywhere close to being that. What is called health care in America is a total disgrace for all, not just the uninsured.

BTW, I am a registered nurse and have to live this horror every day while trying to care for your elderly. They are 'insured' but still get total crap instead of health care.

We have a choice, work to eliminate the Health Insurance companies or continue to have health care that rates 19 out of 19 first world countries. Uh, that is also dead last. Dead.

Veteran '66-68

Health care is out of reach BECAUSE OF the insurance companies. The more it costs the more they make. A single government payer like the VA or any developed nation will work to provide cost effective health care. That way we get the most care for the least cost as opposed to the catastrophy that our insurance controlled government is inflicting on it's citizens. Forcing health insurance isn't any different than saying "your money or your life". Will we next need to ransom our children from the corporations?

There's another cost that neither Edwards or Clinton include in their individual mandate plans: the cost of enforcement. What are they going to do? Throw people in jail when they're caught speeding without health insurance?

At least Obama has said that he if he was starting from scratch he would favor single-payer.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php

At least Obama levels with Americans that you have to take on the costs of health insurance before you can issue a mandate.

The Massachusetts Mandated Health Insurance Plan

"But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.

Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state's insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year's national average. That would undercut the plan's secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs."We're going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits," said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. "If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don't think health reform is sustainable."…

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html

RE: - A Kaiser Family Foundation 2007 survey found that average family premiums are now $12,106

If one was making minimum wage and working 36 hours a week, how much money would one have left over after paying $12,106?

RE: - It's hard to imagine how forcing more people to buy insurance solves these problems, especially when none of the top three Democratic candidates has advocated any cost constraints on the insurers, drug companies or other industry giants.

I don't think that this is technically true. Edwards seems more than willing to go after these corporations. Secondly, Edwards is offering the option of people buying into the government plan (which will be in direct competition with the private health insurance corporations). And financial help for those who cannot afford even these lower payments. It is not single-payer reform, but it is a first step towards it.

RE: - Having insurance is not the same thing as receiving care. Nothing proposed by the top-tier candidates of either party would end the thousands of horror stories of insurance companies denying needed care, access to specialists or diagnostic tests, even when recommended by a doctor.

The only thing that the Private health insurance providers can do to fight back against Edwards letting the public use the public system is lower their premiums. However, it is not just their high rates that people don't like about them but how these greedy corporations avoid paying out when their clients need health care. The big problem is not the user fees (which where there when single-payer started in Saskatchewan, but were eventually phased out), but that the wealthier are able to opt out of the public system completely.

The wealthy don't care whether insurance covers them when they need it or not (they can pay out of their own pocket if they need to), it is the principle of corporate dominance they are trying to uphold. By keeping their money out of the public system, they will make it more expensive to administer.

RE: - Dennis Kucinich?! Well well, then I wonder why Iowa and now NBC are locking him out?

They can't. The judge ruled in Kucinich's favour. They would have to pay a large penalty if they violate a judge's order. How would that look if they would pay out this enormous amount of money just to keep Kucinich out? That would be, in and of itself Newsworthy.

I'm one of those who are "under-insured". Yes, I have employer provided health care, but its deductibles and co-pays are so stiff that I can't really afford needed care. My doctor scheduled me for a needed colonoscopy in a few weeks, but I will probably cancel it because I can't afford it. I will have to pay the entire cost of out of my own pocket and I'm still paying down a lot of medical debt from last year.

I can''t afford to buy "supplemental" insurance to cover costs not covered by my primary insurer. I'm hopping mad at how much of my medical care I am expected to pay out of my own pocket and I can't really afford to be doing this. And yet, I am at the age where certain medical screenings are increasingly necessary, but insurance doesn't cover these. They come out of my pocket and I can't afford it.

We MUST have single payer health care. It is the ONLY answer to our country's health woes. The ONLY candidate supporting it is Dennis Kucinich. PLEASE support his campaign in any way you can. Go to:

http://dennis4president.com/

and contribute. Only when we have a REAL progressive voice in the White House will we ever solve this troubling health care crisis. Do it now, do it for your loved ones who need medical attention, do it for yourself.

http://dennis4president.com/

Contribute today!

It looks like we will be drinking the kool aid sooner rather than later.

i'm not sure why this healthcare thing is such a problem. every 3 years have the people go to the polls and vote for the healthcare provider with the best program.
then the government overseas the restrictions and regulations on said healthcare provider. then every citizen in the United States, employed or unemployed man, woman or child is issued a healthcare card that covers them for med, dental, px and vision.
if every 3 years the providers bid on covering everyone, and it is up to the voters, I would think it would be in their best interest of profitability and survival to win the contract. as for the other companies, if you are employed and your employer still offers a healthcare plan, you are welcome to it, but if the "universal" bid winner has superior yet less expensive coverage why would they choose it. kinda keeps them all honest in order to compete. end of story.

The quality of care is totally decent in the US. The problem is with the quality of service provided by the insurance industry. Need I say more?

The answer to this is not that we force our Democratic candidates to endorse a "government takeover" of health care during their campaigns AND THEN GET BEAT AGAIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION by 30-second ads.

The answer is to elect John, Barack or Hillary, together with a Dem Congress AND THEN demand a serious evaluation of single payer--after Republicans are out of power. Dennis Kucinich has been right all along about single payer, but he cannot get elected on it. Let's not require John, Barack and Hillary to speak so loudly (yet) that they can't get elected either.

What they say in campaigns does not matter. What can be enacted (later) is very important.

Hello all: The problem with Ron Paul is that his solution for the bankrupcy economy of Bush and Clinton is Reaganomics. And do you people wanna know what Reaganomics Neoliberalism is? It is just the same as Bush and Clinton: More privatizations, less social spending on poor people, more deregulation, and in the long run, it will destroy any economy. USA could not bear the economic model of hardcore neoliberalism.

Here is a short summary of what Neoliberalism (Ron Paul's economic model is):

NEOLIBERALISM

What is Neoliberalism?

A Brief Definition for Activists
by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.
"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" — meaning the political type — have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.
"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an Scottish economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition — which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.
Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal — which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.
But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.
A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there …." and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics — but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply — again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves — then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."
In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself — and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.
Elizabeth Martinez is a longtime civil rights activist and author of several books, including "500 Years of Chicano History in Photographs."
13101310Arnoldo Garcia is a member of the Oakland-based Comite Emiliano Zapata, affiliated to the National Commission for Democracy in Mexico.
13101310Both writers attended the Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and against Neoliberalism, held July 27 - August 3,1996, in La Realidad, Chiapas.

THE BEST ALTERNATIVE FOR NEOLIBERALISM IS 21ST CENTURY SOCIALISM

SallyUUKent, the ability to opt into the public plan is a step towards that goal. It is not single-payer, but a move towards that direction. Opting into the public system strikes me as everything being covered without having to pay for additional packages.

Seems as if your private plan is not giving you your money's worth. What you told me is sick! I don't know what advice to give you (about whether to cancel or not) and wish there was a hug emoticon to give you instead.

If I could guarantee that Edwards would get in and that the process for allowing citizens to opt into the public plan was immediate and that waiting a year or two wouldn't kill you, I would say wait. I can't guarantee anything.

RE: - i'm not sure why this healthcare thing is such a problem. every 3 years have the people go to the polls and vote for the healthcare provider with the best program.

It is a problem for the health insurance industry and they will spend millions flooding the airwaves with falsehoods and half-truths to scare people away from this. I think that this is why Edwards is offering the choice to opt into government no-profit insurance first before going to a single-payer system - it destroys most of the corporations arguments. Even those who irrationally fear single-payer won't see anything wrong with the choice to opt in. And, if those who opt in do well, then even more will opt in and a few of these corporations will go bankrupt.

What Edwards is trying to do is decrease the power and hold of the health insurance corporations first before making the move to single-payer.

All or none is too easy for the health insurance corporations to fight. It has been defeated too many times in the US. One has to find a new way to fight them.

We need to keep emphasizing the cost question. The US spendes $8000 per person per year on health care. That is more than double what every other civilized country spends. Some brave reporter (assuming the existence of such) should regularly ask candidates about this.

So how does forcing people to buy insurance "make them responsible for their own health care, rather than society"? Health care is indeed very different than health insurance. Forcing people to buy health insurance is a BIG step toward fascism-the government and the corporations in cahoots to oppress the working class.

As others have pointed out, having health insurance doesn't mean that you can pay for health care. It just means that you are paying insurance companies thousands of dollars a year to pay for people to deny your claim.

But even if we had single payer universal health care, the US would cost more than other countries. We have a car based country, and it causes great damage. From birth to age 44, the number one cause of death in this country is car crashes. After that, it's heart disease. 44 years of sitting on your ass in a car instead of walking contributes to heart disease. People in big cities who walk more, have less morbidity from heart disease.

This country needs to switch from cars to bikes, foot and train and also to single payer health care.

Force me to buy healthcare and I'll deliberately get sick and cough on you

Our entire healthcare system is a retarded joke. Forcing people to be part of a retarded joke is not going to help anything.

RE: - But even if we had single payer universal health care, the US would cost more than other countries.

No, according to the findings of the Romanow Report, eventually the costs will go down.

After single-payer, there will be a move to more non-profit service delivery, which tends to be of higher quality and lower cost.

On the other hand, beware if someone is bent on keeping the costs too low - they may be trying to starve the system. You starve the system, waiting times go up - which provides ammo to the corporate terrorists who want to dismantle it as soon as you get it.

The fight for single-payer health care will end when the world explodes because the fight against it will then finally stop.

Well, I just called the doctor who was supposed to do my colonoscopy and it would cost me several thousand dollars, which I don't have, so it's cancelled. Too bad - this is a necessary test, but I can't afford it. It makes me so angry that I can't afford the necessary health screenings: pap smear, mammogram, colonoscopy and others that you should do at my age, but until we reform our health care system, I'm going to be unable to afford necessary screenings that could detect possible problems.

AND I HAVE INSURANCE!!!!!

This makes me so angry because these are life saving tests, and if they make them out of financial reach of people who need them, guess what? People are going to get sicker and need even more medical care by the time things get diagnosed because they couldn't afford life saving screenings that could detect things early!

THIS IS WRONG!!!!

Folks, it's time we DEMAND single payer health care. Call your representatives and ask them to support H.R. 676, the Conyers-Kucinich health care bill. We can't afford to keep going the way we are. People are being denied necessary screenings because they can't afford them. People are getting sicker and needing more expensive care that could be avoided if they get proper screenings!!!! DEMAND AN END TO INSURANCE COMPANY GREED!!!!! NOW!!!!!

I am thinking that even with insurance, I do not get quality health care.

you forgot to mention that a major reason why the ruling class wants to force people to buy health insurance, is that the hospitals are going bankrupt treating the indigent uninsured. these good liberals actually want to take care of their corporate sponsors in the healthcare industry.

Norma J. Price January 15th, 2008 3:23 pm
I am thinking that even with insurance, I do not get quality health care

now thats another issue entirely. I have been saying for years that Doctors and Dentists these days are on par with auto mechanics. Alot of them do unneccesary additional treatment, and the quality of their work is in the dumper.

RE: - AND I HAVE INSURANCE!!!!! / THIS IS WRONG!!!!

Yes, it is.

What does your insurance actually cover?

If it covers colon cancer treatment, the coverage only lasts as long as you remain in the workforce.

The opting into public insurance is far from satisfactory, but if you lose your job (and can fill out the forms), your public insurance costs (which still cover more and cost less than private insurance) will be subsidized. This is the first step towards everyone being covered through taxes rather than user fees.

I consider the payments you make to the private insurer "user fees" since if you don't pay them, you don't have health care. Though, as you say, even if you do have them, you seem to have to pay the full cost for treatment.

This discussion, Moore's movie Sicko, and the like are missing a much BIGGER point, which is that the health care PARADIGM in this country is already bankrupt. Mainstream medicine operates according to principles that are outmoded, over 100 years old, ignoring the immense discoveries made by medical researchers since roughly the turn of the century...1900!

For instance, a very basic for instance, Louis Pasteur admitted on his deathbed that focusing on germs was not the solution...it's the terrain, the condition of the body and its ability to cope with microbes and prevent disease as well as common sense around microbes (not overusing anti-biotics, dumping antibiotic hand soaps which are mutagenic and carcinogenic etc.), but it's more about the terrain. This is proven out by the ability of diet alone to cure a broad range of degenerative diseases such as MS, cancer, TB and others (Max Gerson's work, for instance).

The big money is in pharmaceuticals, chemotherapy and surgery, which are necessary sometimes, but often which cause more problems AND fail to address the underlying condition, only suppressing it and delaying the inevitable, or allowing things to fester under the surface.

The insurance industry is like a parasitic leech on all the drugs and surgery...they get their cut of that giant money suck.

The true health care reform lies in understanding how the body heals and empowering each individual to use that understanding to take care of themselves. But that also means countering all the disinformation put out by those making the big money now. There's the rub: how to create an effective information insurgency against the propaganda that Big Medicine puts out there.

I'm British, we have universal health cover through the NHS. If I'm sick, I call my doctor, get an appointment probably on the same day, pay £6 (roughly $13) toward the cost of the drugs (the young, old and poor are exempt from that) and get (hopefully) better. Contrary to Giulliani's outright LIE, our standards of care and recovery are about the same as yours.

Know what? It costs less per capita than your system too.

This is what we should expect from Hilary. She will go back on her words. She has proven herself here at the Michigan Primaries: "Had Clinton not gone back on her word, this whole 'debacle' never would have occurred," Schuttler says. "But instead she decided to remain on the ballot to secure herself a potential default victory. Because of this, supporters of other Democratic candidates were left with no option on the ballot." While an unabashed Obama supporter, Schuttler is a staunch Democrat whose ire over those he feels are culpable prompted him to act.

"Governor Granholm is partially to blame for this fiasco," Schuttler says. "Notice that the day after Hillary said she would remain on Michigan's ballot, Granholm endorsed her. She claims this is because Hillary, by staying on the ballot, is supporting Michigan's causes. But if this is so true, why hasn't Hillary visited Michigan since the primary season began?"

Lack of insurance has never been the problem. Lack of access to affordable health care IS.

The fact that this is framed around providing insurance, rather than health care, is all the proof we need to know that neither Obama nor Hillary will be able to do anything to address the underlying problem. In fact, it can only get worse.

What debate??????

Having the candidates argue over who will perform what sex-act upon which insurance-industry lobbyist for what amount of money hardly qualifies as legitimate healthcare debate

As long as the word "insurance" is bandied about in discussions of health care, nothing worthwhile can be accomplished.

As long as billions of dollars are siphoned out of the "health care" system to pay the operating costs and profits of insurance companies, nothing worthwhile can be accomplished.

vaudree wrote:

"RE: - AND I HAVE INSURANCE!!!!! / THIS IS WRONG!!!!

Yes, it is."

"What does your insurance actually cover?"

Not a whole lot. Preventive screenings are to be paid out of the patient's own pocket, and only then does your insurance kick in. Well, guess what? People at work don't do preventive screenings because no one can afford it. So people wait until they get so sick that they require advanced medical treatment, which of course, is ridiculously expensive, which makes our premiums, co-pays and deductibles go even higher each year....you can see the pattern here. It's so bass-ackwards that it's ridiculous.

I'm sure that doctors aren't pleased that their patients forgo necessary and needed health care screenings that could catch things in their early and treatable stages. Oh, no, you have to wait until someone's been diagnosed with late stage cancer because they couldn't afford to get screened when it was treatable and curable.

"If it covers colon cancer treatment, the coverage only lasts as long as you remain in the workforce."

Yup. And once you're forced out due to illness, guess what? No insurance, no ability to afford treatment. That happened to a beloved co-worker of mine who eventually died of her colon cancer.

"I consider the payments you make to the private insurer "user fees" since if you don't pay them, you don't have health care. Though, as you say, even if you do have them, you seem to have to pay the full cost for treatment."

Exactly. We have an aging workforce at my job, median age of 45 and many in poor health requiring expensive medical treatments. You take someone like me, age 50, who is currently healthy and wants to remain so, but wants to be able to have medical screenings to prevent disease and check for any hereditary problems that might arise at my age, but can't afford to do so, and it seems so unfair.

I need a colonoscopy and a good thorough gynecological exam but those are out of reach for me, so....what am I supposed to do? Wait until a diagnosis of cancer and then undergo expensive treatment that could have been prevented? Wouldn't it make more sense to emphasize PREVENTIVE medicine instead of treating advanced disease that could have been prevented through proper screenings?

Why does the American medical system not emphasize PREVENTION of disease? It's cheaper in the long run and doesn't cost as much as treating advanced and preventable illnesses. But then again, I don't see anything changing in my lifetime. The insurance and pharmaceutical companies are too entrenched in our health care system to ever be forcibly yanked off like a bunch of leeches.

How terribly sad......

Prophet...it is a hell of a lot cheaper than ours. Ours is the most expensive per capita, with the worst results per capita of industrialized nations. I mean, Cuba is giving us a run for health quality.

The argument for single payer is so incredibly rational, morally and economically, that the only reason people on the other side seem to defend, after being recited all the evidence and discovering none of their own (besides a slanderous report from CNN or such) is that we "should let the market decide", as if that is some kind of trump card. I offer a price on their head, and suddenly its immoral to let the market decide life and death of course.

Single Payer is the easiest issue to come down on if you are interested in improving overall health, saving money, and the morality of not letting anybody slip through the cracks. This is why it is essential to my vote, and I encourage you to make it essential to yours. I will vote Green, Socialist, or any other party that supports single payer if Dennis doesn't have some mind blowing come back.

A more appropriate title might be "Obama-Clinton Debate Ignores Real Issues". I have yet to hear anything truly meaningful from either of them.

Is anyone else NOT surprised that Hillary's "plan" sounds like something out of Fascist Italy?

Making it illegal for people not to buy health insurance just puts all the sick people in prison. It's Nazi Germany all over again, and that was their intention from the start.

And financially penalizing people for something they can't afford is INSANE. If I lose my job and I don't have health insurance, I certainly cannot buy it. I simply will not go to the doctor when I am sick be it cancer or whatever. I'll stay home (or be homeless) and die. That's what our sick sick sick sick Fascist Corporate society has done to us.

DENNIS KUCINICH is the only humane and sane person running on the democratic ticket. And the corporate fascist media have tried to silence him and his supporters since 2004.

But shutting us up doesn't change the inevitable TRUTH. Not to be biblical or anything, but when Jesus was told to quiet down the people, he replied that if he did, the STONES WOULD CRY OUT THE TRUTH.

I tend to align myself with single payer supporters but I have some questions and they are not rhetorical.

I have a fear that the "savings" resulting from a switch to single payer would evaporate, just as the "peace dividend" evaporated after the USSR collapsed. I can see how there is vast waste in the existing insurance/HMO based system, but I don't see how the $$ in the insurance column will automatically show up in the savings column, i.e., in users pockets or in hospital coffers or somewhere else where it might do some good.

There is a "medical-industrial complex". It's a lot like the military industrial complex. It's very hard to eliminate a weapons system or close a base because people's livelihoods depend on them. I don't view that as good but it is a reality..

Then there is the rising cost of healthcare (not healthcare management). Research, clinical care, medical malpractice, drugs and other cost factors are all going up and would continue to increase even with single payer in place. Insurance companies don't cover everything ostensibly to cut costs and reduce premiums. Under single payer, what would be the cost control mechanisms? Who would decide what procedures or care plans were required or justified? Who would hold doctors, patients and hospitals accountable?

I'd like to see single payer advocates start answering these questions. The Right will raise them, perhaps for their own disingenuous reasons but they are questions which will need to be answered.

Here in CA, Sheila Kuehl's bill (AB 840) has received majority support in both houses and the Gov has vetoed it (2x I think), claiming high costs and "government control". "Government control", the Harry and Louise factor, is an emotional propaganda issue. We can't get enough traction to roll over cynical emotionalism until major political figures come forward with support. Then we will have to take on the economic argument.

Any answers out there?

RE: - Making it illegal for people not to buy health insurance just puts all the sick people in prison. It's Nazi Germany all over again, and that was their intention from the start.

When you eventually have full blown single-payer government administered health insurance, you won't be able to opt out. Hey, Wesley Snipes (Blade) doesn't even get to opt out!

In Manitoba, you may not pay premiums, but you all contribute through your taxes. If you make more money, you contribute more and if you make less money you contribute less, but you have the same coverage! Those who make lots of money don't like this system.

In Manitoba, you are not allowed to drive a car without car insurance - and MPI is government owned and the only car insurance in the province. The one benefit is that if all car owners behave themselves and there are less accidents than expected, they get a rebate at the end of the year! The other benefit is that Manitobans pay less than they do in Ontario where they only have private auto insurance providers.

RE: - And financially penalizing people for something they can't afford is INSANE.

Edwards says that he will offer subsidies (covering all or most of the cost) if you cannot afford it. Then again, this does leave it to government to determine how much of the going rate you can or cannot afford.

RE: - I need a colonoscopy and a good thorough gynecological exam but those are out of reach for me, so….what am I supposed to do? Wait until a diagnosis of cancer and then undergo expensive treatment that could have been prevented?

If you go to Canada or Mexico, you will have to pay the full cost out of pocket - plus travel, hotel and food. Make sure if you go through all that expense that you don't get a quack. Every country has them.

RE: - People at work don't do preventive screenings because no one can afford it. So people wait until they get so sick that they require advanced medical treatment, which of course, is ridiculously expensive

The Repugs want to go to the health voucher system - which will be what you describe on steroids. There will be two attitudes towards them - both which hurt the not as well off. Some will be too worried about the money running out when they need it the most so they won't get the colonoscopy. Others, because of youth, will figure that they will be healthy for ever and fritter it away. A variant of the latter are those who, because of some subprime in the future, use the health voucher money in an attempt to avoid losing the house. They end up with no house and no money for when they get sick.

If you are dirt poor, the health voucher money will go to food and to get the kid that wii he wants so badly. It is hard to eat baking powder biscuits three nights a week just to prevent oneself from touching money that is just sitting there. How long would each of you last without dipping into it for food - 10 years - 30 years - 50 years? And no parent wants to deny their kid what all the other kids seem to have.

Irontek NAILED it:

THE BEST ALTERNATIVE FOR NEOLIBERALISM IS 21ST CENTURY SOCIALISM

The elected supporters of single-payer (not mandated insurance handouts to the insurance/pharm industry) need to be relentless about re-framing this back to its core truths.

It may well be that soundbites/emotion can best be overcome by other soundbites, emotion, humor, art, music, Hollywood figures, etc. There are many sorts of Americans, good and bad in everyone. Some people are more swayed by reason, others by the soundbite format. Get a bunch of well-liked celebrities, politicians who might support single-payer, policy wonks, activists and philosophers into an intensive weekend retreat somewhere.

The end result should be message palatable to ordinary people, entertaining, humorous, 100% truthful, neither preachy nor pandering to fear, etc. Something like this can't lose.

Hello boys and girls and you say more coruption? I think you can , if you try. lmao

Here we go again; the virtues of a one payer system are sung to the high heavens without mentioning the real roots of our current system's major flaw, the lowering of standards causes care to be repeated again and again resulting in our current mess.

"There's one alternative that would guarantee coverage for everyone, protect choice of doctor, promote cost savings by slashing administrative waste, and get the insurance companies out of the way. It's called single-payer reform, as in an expanded and improved Medicare for all. The candidates should demonstrate the courage to talk about this one real reform."

The author has not demonstrated why her statement is true, she resides instead, in the land of unsupported assertions as do most of her attendant cheerleaders.
I have a reply posted on this website: http://www.politicsusaweb.com/

the direct link is
http://www.politicsusaweb.com/spiel%20about%20the%20quality%20of%20medical%20care.txt

Health care in this country is operating in a poorly delivered system that cannot compete on what counts-the quality of care delivered to the patient. Overall results in the long haul are not available-we are better versed in choosing the equipment for a home theater system than a plan for caring for our own health and that of our loved ones.

For a video on this whole issue and where the candidates really stand, go to
YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9E-8etrE2o

There is another solution to making health care affordable without creating a medicare-for-all solution. We need to eliminate the profit motive. Simply require all hospitals, HMOs, pharmaceutical, medical equipment companies, as well as, all private health care professionals to operate as non-profit businesses.

Though I can think of an additional source of saving; we should cap salaries. Say the best paid can only make 12-15 times what the worst paid make. After all, I thought that people went into medicine to save lives and help people to live long and healthy, not to get rich.

The real answer is to both shift to a not-for-profit system and single-payer medicare for all. Insurance companies have no business in the health care system at all, as they do not provide health care, in fact it is their business to deny treatment to boost profits, and funds that should be reaching health care providers are skimmed off by the insurance companies.

i don't want the kind of medical care that insurance company will pay for, so good luck forcing me to pay for health insurance that only pays for killer care.

I am currently uninsured with type II diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension, having gone through a double bypass last year and I swear I will put a gun to my own head before I pay one penny for any mandated insurance.

Why do we put up with these cretins and sub-human simpletons.