When the two other parties nominate somebody with at least the standing of Ross Perot, they might have a chance.

I despise the Democrats more than the Republicans. They just bent over and took it.
What a lousy party; so weak, so infantile, so cowardly, so corrupt. I will vote for McCain for spite.

No one has ever said a "single payer" health care system would not have problems. Anytime you have something that complex and you are dealing with the diversity of people; the people providing and those receiving the care, you are going to have challenges that will require constant adjustments on the ground to make it work; make it better.

So what? Every system has it's problems. The only reason you do not hear about the catastrophic health care in the US is because it is private and too why you hear about the problems in a system like the Canadian system because it is open to public oversight.

Why would anyone prefer to trust a system run by Corporations over one that could be subject to public accountability? It boggles the mind.

Who says it has to be the Canadian model anyway? There are numerous "single payer" system, indeed practically every other industrialized nation has one. And as in all things, with the amount being spent even now and the infrastructure available why would we not expect the US couldn't do better than any of them?

Two years ago I posted an article published in a medical journal concerning this. I think if it as other I have read were included in the public discourse, the American people would demand and settle for nothing less than "single payer" health care. Why it is not fundamental to public knowledge can only reflect the lack of political will by those in government and the vast sums of money at stack for those who have so much to lose should the public become informed.

This article as far as I know was not available online so I am going to put that article back up for a short while so if anyone here might like to read it they can.

http://theportalgates.net

What a remarkable near-unanimity of views on this string of comments, which I would summarize simply: the Democratic Party's platform on health care stinks! Please sign me up to that consensus. About the only significant disagreement, granted that most of the writers will not support a Democratic candidate, is whether we should support Nader or McKinney as an alternative---a debate well worth having and on which I have a definite viewpoint, but that's a subject for another posting.

Isn't it remarkable, as well, how the bloom fades off the rose (so to speak) after an "inspiring" candidate from the primaries assumes the "mantle" of the Democratic Party and, along with that, the much-deserved opprobrium that so many feel for the donkey party, with its history of faux-progressivism and back stabs against "the common people" whom it supposedly represents? As long as Obama was able to wax eloquently and vaguely about his stands on issues that were mostly very little different than those of Hillary Clinton, he looked like the candidate of "change" and her the candidate of the "old guard," without any indication of how the new guard under Obama would be substantively different from the old one under the Clintons.

Now you're nominated, Barack Obama, what next? For one thing, all those maligned opponents from the primaries and all their stable of "advisers" and some of their campaign contributors now come into your stable and eat and defecate there. Now you have to endure the construction of a party "platform" that is probably fashioned mostly by Howard Dean, the man who out-triangulates the great Triangulator Bill Clinton, and you're finally going to have to endure a convention with all those screaming delegates poorly fed on outrageously expensive food and charged to pay "fund-raising" fees to every signficant convention event they attend. I say endure because, surprise, though you probably think that everybody is as turned on by the preening vanity cases who appear on Oprah and Extreme Makeover as you are with their Magificent Qualities, the public is just about burnt out on "spectacle" after the last firework was extinguished at the Games, and people (those who vote) would like to have a little breathing space which is denied them by constant media coverage of your every silly exchange with the other candidate and endless repetitions of your "biography" commercials on TV. (I'm Barack Obama and I came from a really interesting background and..that's about it). But you and the party have to keep up the assault on public decency, because you've raised mega-millions of dollars from millions of "small donors" and a handful of VERY BIG ones and you have to spend the money SOMEHOW. It's a hard, hard life, this being the nominee of the Democratic Party and, whatever respect you got as a candidate "on your own" you lose as the nominee of a Party which has made itself so hateful to the American people.

McCain wants to gut employer based health insurance buy taxing the benefit. If everyone who now enjoys employer based health insurance got screwed then maybe we would get single payer. I have never been a deconstructionist before but on this issue too many people are tied into the current system to effect incremental change. I still say vote democratic and let the system fail. Voting republican (Nader) is too dangerous because they really do just Want us to be screwed.

lisa3210peace (9:33 am) displays her pathetic lack of brains: "One or two percent of Americans support Nader. The rest of us are idiots..."

- By this logic, since many more Americans support Republicans than support Nader, this must mean that Republicans are "better" than Nader. And of course, since Republicans have won the White House in 7 of the last 10 elections, this must also mean that Republicans are "better" than Democrats. Isn't that right, Lisa, you dimwit?

If you don't want a decent health care system, vote Democrat.

USAn August 12th, 2008 1:43 am wrote:

"And, my dear Canuck ATLAW, you're a fucking rich man aren't you???"

Actually, ATLAW purports to be an American in Quebec. But he is obviously a propagandist for an American insurance company or consortium. I have seen virtually the exact same posts on other boards over the past several years, so this "gee willikers, who'da thunk Canadians don't like their health care system?" ploy is transparently just that - a ploy. Don't be fooled.

One or two percent of Americans support Nader. The rest of us are idiots.

Obama '08. And, God willing, 60 Deomcratic seats in the Senate.

Please Cheney and Rove Again: Vote Nader.

Hamster:
a few points, one my wife got her operation in 48 hours after her Doctor told her she had cancer in ONTARIO.
Private healthcare in Quebec if what you say is true is fast BECAUSE NOT AS MANY PEOPLE ARE SIGNED UP FOR IT. If everyone was signed up it would be NO FASTER.
I have heard this you have to wait so long story put out by the neocons USA wana be Canadians for years but have NEVER NEVER NEVER had to wait or a member of my new family ever had to wait. You get some person whinning because they had to wait for a cut finger and think the person who just arrived at the hospital in an ambulance from a car accident should be behind you in line???!!!!
As for Quebec it is the reason Harper is in power and will screw Quebec over so bad if he wins the next election

My conclusion to Jack Nelson Stewart is:

If you live in a state where Obama is safe

VOTE FOR RALPH NADIR - F**K THE DEMOCRATS !!!

And if you are still young, choose (almost) any other country, learn the language - and leave!! It will take more than your lifetime for this country to again become worthy of respect, worth living in, and worth contributing to.

I have wondered for a long time how insurance companies came to be between us and our doctors. I'm a fairly old guy and remember when my doctor's office had a little lab in it and a tech who worked there and if the doctor wanted to know something about my blood or anything, I just went down the hall to the lab. My pediatrician came to the house sometimes, carrying various medicines in his bag. When the visits were over, the bill was tallied and we either paid it or agreed on a plan to pay it.

Now I have an insurance company that tells me what it will or won't pay for according to formulae constructed by the company's adjusters. Care has grown so expensive that if the insurance company says it won't pay for something, a lab test or a medication, I can't afford it. Basically, I have a corporation whose primary interest in me is as a profit source determining my health care based on a business model where they make the most money by taking in the biggest premiums they can and putting out the least service they can.

We have come to equate health "care" with health "coverage" and our politicians aren't really working to provide "care" but "coverage" which they call "availability." When people hear that someone or another is working to provide health care "availability" they should realize that what is being offered is "coverage."

If you want a real insight into the system, see if you can talk an adjuster into telling you HOW MUCH they pay, say, that lab that's trying to bill you for that test they say your doctor didn't REALLY need to diagnose you. The lab wants a couple of hundred bucks for it from YOU. If you can get the adjuster to tell you the truth you will discover that IF the insurance company pays for the test, the lab will get about twenty dollars for it. Health care isn't really that expensive. INSURED health care is.

The game is rigged, kids, and the only real answer is to get the insurance companies out from between us and our doctors. Unfortunately, there is a TREMENDOUS torrent of MONEY washing around in this whole deal and BOTH parties are serving the insurance companies. You are NOT going to get "CARE," you are going to get "COVERAGE" and if the government mandates some kind of "affordable" coverage, you will have watched as the insurance companies (and the profit they make) became a mandated and institutionalized part of the "Health Care System" to a degree that is even greater than is presently so. (By the way … the same thing was true of "Privatizing" Social Security.)

There are a couple of possibilities. One is to cause actual care to be provided at actual cost plus, oh maybe five or six percent (the doctors have to make some profit, you know), and another is to actually have single payer care: You pay your taxes and when you go to the doctor or the hospital, you just get care, not a bill. Yes, your taxes will go up. You have to consider whether you would prefer that your money goes into a shared system to provide actual CARE for all our people or that it go to an insurance company whose interest is in PROFIT and where the money, in large part, goes to sweet and heartwarming advertising and to pay the salaries of a layer of upper level management who are collecting enough money to bring a tear to your eye, if you could afford it.

Remember, Republicans insist that government doesn't work and when they are able, they cause it not to. Just as someone said above about the Canadian system: There isn't anything wrong with it except the "conservatives" are starving it so they can point to it and say,"SEEEE, we TOLD you it wouldn't work!!" Democrats are just as indebted and obliged to the insurance industry as the Republicans and won't really be any more genuinely "progressive" in their programs than the Republicans.

The Redemopublicraticans are conjoined twins on a corporate feeding tube.

Please form your own conclusion here: ________________

Since the Dumbocrats can't do anything without selling their asses out first to wealthy and ever-more-greedy corporations, no doubt this big health care for all will hinge on their deciding---as is the case right now in Massachusetts my state---how much you can AND MUST "afford" to pay. This "liberal" state now has one of the first COMPULSORY programs in the U.S.---you may have to get a third job but you WILL BUY health insurance whether you need/want it or not, or pay an increasing fine via your taxes. Isn't that great? And has it reduced emergency room waiting? Brought down the price? Done ANYthing but enrich corporations? NO. NADER NADER NADER--Who believes that every American should have the same health plan as members of Congress. If you vote for these double-talking prostitutes you get what you deserve....

Commondreams, when trying to edit my post, I get an error message from your server script including table names and columns. I also have access I think so it wouldn't take much to destroy your database with an insertion attack. You might want to hide those error messages. Simply putting an "@" before a php query would do it...

It was an easy choice for our democratic party leadership to make. Would they have single payer health insurance that would benefit the majority of the population; or would they pick their version of "guaranteed health care for all" which would only benefit a very small group of people in the insurance agency. We know which one they picked. There is no apologizing for them.

You could either support the status quo and vote for either of the two corporate candidates, or you can vote third party.

On that front, while I am a total supporter of Nader for the last two elections and this one as well, I will vote green party because this is the year that we send the message to the democrats and the progressive people have taken a stand. No more selling out to corporate interests.

Vote third party.

USAn,

I am not Québécois but I visit here each year as I said in my posts.

My understanding is Canadians want a mix of private/public which is the typical European health system not totally socialized. Canada's is a totally socialized system with private care outlawed. HR676 and Nader's plan would also outlaw private care.

It is the poor people who are suffering under that kind of system here in Canada not the rich people. The rich people can find ways to break the law or go to America and pay for their care. It is average income people who I have heard complain about the healthcare. My own situation which you don't correctly surmise is irrelevant.

I agree with you, USAn. The problem here in the U.S. is dire. We're hardly clamoring for "choice". What we want is to be able to receive health care without going bankrupt! We'll take the supplementals after we can be afforded something basic. Too many people are unable to receive any health care at all. The rest of us suffer with high co-pays, deductibles, out-of-pockets and just plain stuff that "isn't covered" (in the latter category it seems there's more and more, every year - now I find that my follow-up tests after a routine mammogram are "medical" and thus it falls under the deductible, now I find that the laser surgery I need for my eye is "experimental and not covered". I am currently holding two full-time jobs, with two insurances, just so I can get my basic needs covered - and I'm fairly healthy!!)
Single-payer is the only plan that makes any sense. One of the bloggers here commented that "insurance is for things, not people". Absolutely right on! I believe the private insurance system is a form of extortion. Who won't pay and pay to save their own life? But why do we allow this criminal activity to continue???

ATLAW,

You need to look at the bigger picture.

The canadian health care system is being deliberately starved of funds in order to produce the very criticism that you voice. The next step, of course, is a clamor for privatization. This is the old standard neoliberal trick - take an efficient public service, sabotage it, then say: "see how inefficient socialistic government is? Wouldn't you rather buy health care from the wonderful "free market"? The solution to you problem is to clamor for more health care funding - not open the system to privatization. Maybe should switch to a completely "socialized" France/UK type system - France has the best healthcare in the world - at a fraction of the per capital cost of the US.

And, the problem is far more than just some needy people not being able to afford insurance - it is an utterly runaway criminal system.

For an almost universal example of what we face down here go up to the post on Aug 11, 3:23pm.

And, my dear Canuck ATLAW, you're a fucking rich man aren't you???

As Gore Vidal once said, the rich own the insurance companies.

Currently, under the U.S. insurance company-directed healthcare, about one third of every healthcare dollar in the United States goes to the insurance companies.

By contrast, under single payer, the administrative costs are minimal.

Single payer is far more efficient - everyone pays through taxes. Those who need healthcare get treatment, regardless of their financial or employment situation.

This is also called socialized medicine. (It used to be a Democratic Party principle that government can do some good things that individuals cannot. Universal healthcare funding is a classic case of that - but the Party's not going to go along with it.)

The whole HMO system was devised under Kaiser in the '70s to make a profit by limiting people's care. President Nixon backed Kaiser's profit-making scheme at the time, while giving the HMOs PR cover. (Nixon's on tape in the film, "Sicko," saying as much.)

Probably the one thing Americans want (besides peace), is universal healthcare, and single payer is how that gets done. Here you see the Democrats agreeing to kill that dream. And the stakes are quite high. At present, 50 percent of personal bankruptcies in the United States stem from an inability to pay medical debts. Literally, people are getting squeezed, even if they have insurance.

You'd think that the pro-war Democrats would throw a bone, any bone, to their base to ease matters. Well, it's certainly not this fake healthcare "plan" drawn up by the insurance companies.

The Democratic Party offer so little to the people. It's nothing but vague promises of hope while doing the bidding of their plutocrat masters.

Yes, it's true that McCain's "healthcare plan" is bad. He offers health savings accounts rather that even trying anything like reform - even fake reform. Still, to be so betrayed by the Democrats. Sold out. I just don't know why people vote for either of the two parties.

Guaranteed Health Care Key Plank in Democrat's Platform
-Democratic PRANK!

I'm like all the other intelligent dissengters here. Please, folks, if you have any integrity and principles left please exercise it by voting for the Nadar/Gonzalez ticket.

The Demorats/dumbocrats are brain-dead, bush lites in disguise.

I mean really! "Redeployment of troops" to Afghanistan rather than bringing them all home and ending the illegal occupation of two sovedreign countries."Improving upon NAFTA" so it works for everyone - Americans, Mexicans, Canadians -when its a total scam for the working poor and middle classes. Talking out of both sides of their mouths when they speak of universal health care but only either guarantee it for children or "to help" out the needy, when in fact their definition of needy are the insurance comnpanies and medical HMO's.

I mean if the American public thinks that by voting for the Demorats and Dumbocrats they will be doing something positive for the country and the world, then, Good luck! They richly deserve whatever they get, whether it eventually is a dirty bomb, bikological terrorism or just plain old economic collapse and conquering by the Chinese.

I'm like all the other intelligent dissengters here. Please, folks, if you have any integrity and principles left please exercise it by voting for the Nadar/Gonzalez ticket.

The Demorats/dumbocrats are brain-dead, bush lites in disguise.

I mean really! "Redeployment of troops" to Afghanistan rather than bringing them all home and ending the illegal occupation of two sovedreign countries."Improving upon NAFTA" so it works for everyone - Americans, Mexicans, Canadians -when its a total scam for the working poor and middle classes. Talking out of both sides of their mouths when they speak of universal health care but only either guarantee it for children or "to help" out the needy, when in fact their definition of needy are the insurance comnpanies and medical HMO's.

I mean if the American public thinks that by voting for the Demorats and Dumbocrats they will be doing something positive for the country and the world, then, Good luck! They richly deserve whatever they get, whether it eventually is a dirty bomb, bikological terrorism or just plain old economic collapse and conquering by the Chinese.

An efficiently administered, government run single payer health care system (which is what all human beings need and deserve), ought to be easily affordable in a fiscally sound, democratically ruled $11 trillion annual economy.

But big as it is, the US economy is not only not sound, it has this time begun a final phase transition, equal to common water (on which everyone can potentially float) changing to temporary steam (which lifts up debt holders momentarily while drowning most others first -- and then also drowns the debt holders themselves, later.)

As much as we need affordable health care, NO such public system is presently affordable given the realities of public and private debt -- incurred thanks to congressional democrats colluding with corporatist neocons.

Crucial lynchpins of the US popular economy are already self-destructing under a monetary meltdown, due in turn to greed driven fiscal policies commanded by international capital: policies which have now increased the US financial system's public and private debt load beyond the ability of any internally-based income sources to ever service in time.

When a private person's debts get into such a fix, it's called 'projected cash flow insolvency', and a court-administered bankruptcy decree is the only option for debitor and creditor alike. But when the same thing happens to the public debt of a govenment that floats on state-issued currency - especially if co-incident with widespread failures of private debt servicing -- a capitalist economy is guaranteed to collapse for the many: Imprudent debt dries up normal flows of public and private liquidity [cash]; banks call in and foreclose on all representations of unserviced debt, including, most disastrously for average people, real property and personal cash savings. Whatever purchasing power remains in the official economy's liquid cash currency is then predictably reduced further, usually by the minting of fluff currency that reflects no real weath creation and thus holds no meaningful value. Then, further, by spiraling inflation of all commodity prices due to drastic decline of the currency's former face value; and on and on, downward to million dollar loaves of bread, mass survival privation, civil upheaval, and inevitably, bread-privileged police shooting their neighbors at the behest of the mindless, souless, greed demented rulers.

If the few remaining, genuinely progressive Democrats who still exist in the Party have failed to demand and get a single payer HC system as a plank in Obama's National Party Platform, it's probably because they understand that the US is about one micrometer away from internal economic ruination-- a collapse from which it will never recover in this new world of internationally, hyper-corporatized global capital.

And because of that, and also because of Obama's now clearly, utterly oligarchy affirming foreign policy positions, any remaining progressives -- or even just simple, decent Constitutionalists in the Demo Party, ought to bolt the Party. Get out of the duopoly. Join and help build the Greens.

Caucuses of Green party lawmakers with admixtures of trustable ballot-independent progressives, like Cindy Sheehan, elected to the House and Sentate and acting with fidelity to average people's interests -- this is now the only real hope for change.
There is barely enough flex left in the US political system to do even this -- but I believe it is still possible to begin this transformation in local congressional districts, if enough of us act in time.

Vote Nader, McKinney, or even Obama, as your conscience and presidential hopes guide you. But understand that only by acting locally to get more people like Cindy Sheehan into lawmaking bodies, can there be any hope of bringing down Goliath.

Just another reason I'm voting for Ralph.

The Dems are PATHETIC.

lost my tribe August 11th, 2008 10:42 pm writes "Dems lose, Greens lose. McCain wins. Brilliant move ya'all armchair pundits."
-honestly I love the one about crying wolf, the big bad wolf McCain is coming.

Listen lost my tribe what exactly have the Democrats done in the last two years since they took over the Congress to stop the Republicans that would cause me to put my faith in them? What have the Democrats done for you lately? How about in the last 4 yrs, 8 years?

What the FUCK HAVE THE DEMOCRATS DONE losttribe?
This is what they've done:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war
2) Refuse to impeach Bush
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers into the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here_________________________________.

Can you tell why I should vote for Democrats whenn they go along with the Republican agenda so nicely?

If Bush is a war criminal then the Democrats starting with their leader Pelosi are war criminals too. Screw both the Democrats and the Pugs!!!!

GO GREENS! GO ANYBODY BUT A GOD-DAMNED DEMOCRAT@!!!

ATLAW sez: "...if you tell people here that some Americans want healthcare like they have, they find that pretty surprising considering how much problems they feel they are having with their own healthcare"

Well, this could simply be just another instance of some people not really knowing how well off they are. I think it's human nature to focus on the imperfections of a system that someone has been living under for years and glancing over the fence, thinking that those other guys over there have something different--and therefore, better. I think that many Canadian citizens see the health insurance industry in the U.S. as, "Wow! Free choice of insurance providers...way cool! That'll solve everything!"

Have we heard from any Canadians who could never afford thousands of dollars per year for that nifty "choice" of private health insurance plans? But then again, when I think of poverty, inner-city ghettos, homeless people, slums and filthy, run-down public housing projects, I don't see Canadian cities, I see American cities.

My apologies to those who have read these words from me here before, but there's the additional issue of refusal of coverage. Right now, the only way I can get health-care insurance is through an employer's group plan. Since millions of good-paying jobs have disappeared from the U.S. in just the past few years, wages have stagnated (and median household income has declined). I lost a good job right after 9-11 and had to take a "survival job" at 26% less pay. I work full-time, but I'm gradually using up my savings to make ends meet. But I have health insurance. The only long-term hope I have for a better income is self-employment. But then I would have no health insurance. This would be a foolish risk at my age. So, for now, I'm basically trapped.

I have never been in favor of socialized medicine. I'm satisfied with my family physician; I do not want to go to a yucky, government-run, public-aid clinic. My only concern is with the insurance part: increasing costs and decreasing benefits. That's why I support HR676. Not because the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence (or the border) but because that's how the numbers add up.

The problem with the Canadian system has been outlined before. In order to Balance the Budget the Liberals cut back on transfer payments to the Provinces and dropped the funding from the 50/50 model. They pulled too much money from the System.

Quebec is likely worst of all because they have a terribly incompetent Government.

This not a function of single payer. It will take more money back in the system to right the ship.

I do NOT think Canadas system is the "best in the world" I do think single payer is the way to go.

PK

Bash Bash Bash. What you going to do come November, let the country elect McCain. Oh sure that will solve our problems. Vote Nader-Gonzales ticket? Oh sure that's going to help a productive dialogue going between the Dem grassroots and the Green grassroots. Yah sure, insist on splitting vote between Dem and Green. Dems lose, Greens lose. McCain wins. Brilliant move ya'all armchair pundits. Let me put it this way Obama is not my messiah nor are the greens (yet) for president, but McCain & the Repubs have done enough damage to screw not only me but my kids, my grandkid and on and on for I do not know how long it will take to pay of this $3 trill on the Iraq war. In my book the energy should be on 1. getting Obama elected. 2. getting Matt Gonzales some kind of post in the administration 3.work on Sheehan's campaign if possible so she can hold Pelosi's feet to the fire. There is much more but those are the main three.

Here is what Nader wants:

"patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?ei=5090&en=ad12dcee61e8b584&ex=...

hamster,

But here in Canada which is what Nader models his plan after people are not getting healthcare fast enough. The "as soon as they can provide treatment" seems to be the issue. The private healthcare is growing here in Quebec because of frustration, people pay for it out of their own pocket and I think it is actually contrary to what is lawful but they are doing it anyway. Also because Canadians are frustrated with how long it takes to get care they are probably going to legalize private healthcare soon. And just like there are stories about Americans going to Canada, Canadians come to America to get the healthcare they need also. So why would Nader be using another system that also isn't working as his model? To be honest I don't fully understand the Canadian politics and healthcare but I do know if you tell people here that some Americans want healthcare like they have, they find that pretty surprising considering how much problems they feel they are having with their own healthcare:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/single-payer/

I cannot believe that once again the Democratic Party has shown such ignorance of and/or indifference to the clear preferences of a majority of the american people and ignored the single payer system approach (HR 676 or expanded medicare for all). There is no other way that we can possibly afford to provide genuine universal coverage for all. Enough of our wasteful subsidies of private insurance companies and wasteful paperwork, advertising, insurance agents, outlandish CEO salaries, and a system that puts profit above health care for our citizens.

I don't care what health care for everybody costs. If we can afford no bid contracts, war, occupations, atomic weapons and security for Bu$h the inferior and Shotgun Dick - WE CAN AFFORD HEALTH CARE!

ATLAW: "This means if the government program tells me I can't get treatment for my cancer for 6 months like the father of the guy who lives above me here in Quebec, then I have to pay tens of thousands to save my life because I can't protect myself with insurance against this happening. That concerns me."
HR676 provides government run health insurance for everyone. And it covers all medically necessary treatments, it's very comprehensive (unlike private insurance with its reams of exceptions). You would get treated in the hospital or clinic of your choice, as soon as they can provide the treatment. The difference is that the bill would go to the National Insurance plan for payment.

Here is a link to the HR Bill 676 supported by Physicians.

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/the_national_health_insurance_bill_hr_676.php

NO more of this Namby pamby Health Savings Plans.. they only benefit banks.. and screw you over. It is just a way to get employers away from supporting healthcare.

It is a scam.

Health Insurance in this country is a SCAM!!!

NO MORE!@!! Support this bill!

GKL,

In a previous post you wrote:

"OK you Nader folks, please tell me what your guru's plan for health care is."

You're kididng, right? Go to http://www.votenader.org/index.html
There you'll find Ralph Nader's stand on *all* the issues, healthcare included.

Nader is for a "single-payer" plan; McCain and Bush are not. Big, BIG difference.

You also wrote:

"Why isn't he (Nader) speaking out about his plan. And don't give me the crap about the media shutting him out. He could always write for CD."

Alas, mainstream media's dominance of the airwaves as well as the printed word is not so easily dismissed. Mainstream media *is* shutting out Ralph Nader, as well as anyone else who questions the status quo.

As soon as anyone on the left speaks up, mainstream media marginalizes them -- e.g., Nader, McKinney, Kucinich, Sharpton.

As for writing for CD, Nader's articles do occasionally appear here, albeit this is just one tiny corner of the media, hardly comparable to the countless number of times members of the Democratic-Republican duopoly appear before *millions* of people on the teevee networks.

Mainstream media shuts out dissenters like Ralph Nader because their ideas are *dangerous* to the interests of the economic elite. It's not for nothing that mainstream media is corporate-owned, corporate-controlled and corporate-sponsored. ... Can you imagine a debate with McCain, Obama *and* Ralph Nader. RALPH NADER WOULD WIPE THE FLOOR WITH MCCAIN AND OBAMA! And *that's* why mainstream media shuts out dissenters like Ralph Nader.

Letting Ralph Nader into just one debate would make his views known to millions of Americans. Do you think Corporate America, who holds the key to the doors of the presidential debates -- the presidential debates being a private, corporate-owned event -- want millions of people to hear a dissenting voice?

Does a corporatist want millions of people to hear the views of an anti-corporatist? ... Does an oligarch want millions of people to hear the views of a democrat?

Thank you for your responses to my question and there's really no reason to be rude. I have very similar political views as you. It is just that I spend a good part of the year in Canada and speaking with people here has given me the perspective that "single payer" can have it's problems also and leave cancer patients without the treatment they need and can force people to go broke to get the treatment they need when they need it. I can also tell you though that there are many French people in Quebec and I've heard that the French healthcare does work and is much better than Canadian. But the advice I've got in Canada from people is that I want to make sure I don't get sick when I'm here.

By the way, Poet says...
"I have never heard that single payer would outlaw private health insurance"

Who else doesn't understand this. You should read H.R.676:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110DNqIZw:e10036:

"Section 104 states:

(a) In General- It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act."

This means if the government program tells me I can't get treatment for my cancer for 6 months like the father of the guy who lives above me here in Quebec, then I have to pay tens of thousands to save my life because I can't protect myself with insurance against this happening. That concerns me.

buminfl:
I would be very very happy to know my taxes are paying for your healthcare and not war.

GKL: "Why isn't he speaking out about his plan." He is. You're not listening. "He could always write for CD." He does. You're not reading it. Look up the archives.

wsws
it maybe work, here in Canada the 3rd and 4th party can make a difference but then it can also just stall the government and it moves in slow motion
I just have one question to you, do you trust the vote counting in America enough that these 3rd party votes even get counted? I just remember Ron Paul one night was listed as no votes at all until some one asked about it then he had some votes but who is the say it was all the votes cast for him

Look: "But I wish all you Naderites (Nannie 4:48 pm for example) would stop trying to promote your candidate and throw your support behind McKinney and the Greens. I'm sure that Ralph Nader has a great platform, but he's not going to win, and voting for him will not accomplish squat except maybe give you some self-righteous satisfaction." How many state ballots will McKinney be on? Nader is already on 30 state ballots and will be at 45 states by Sept 15, enough in theory to make the electoral total to victory. As for "self-righteous satisfaction", you are the pot calling the kettle black. Nader is at 6% and may hit 10%. If he does then he has claims to being included in the "debates:. If that happens, it will be a major accomplishment, hardly "self righteous satisfaction". Run Ralph. Run!

OK you Nader folks, please tell me what your guru's plan for health care is. Does he have support in congress or anywhere else to make it happen? Why isn't he speaking out about his plan. And don't give me the crap about the media shutting him out. He could always write for CD. If he were really serious, he would find a way to be heard. He is just a stale Harold Stassen, the candidate to nowhere.

bvance,

I agree with you about not voting for Obama.

The only sane thing to do is to *not* vote for insane people -- insane people who espouse insane, murderous policies.

I'm referring of course to the Democratic-Republican duopoly. I'm referring to the fact that

... 1,000,000 Iraqis have died as a result of Gulf War 2.

... 225,000 died as a result of Gulf War 1.

... 1,000,000 died as a result of the economic sanctions against Iraq.

... global warming;

... worldwide hunger and poverty; with 50% of the population living on $2 a day or less, 20% on $1 a day or less.

... America, the richest country in the world, having the highest poverty rate of any advanced industrial country

... America, the richest country in the world, having a *childhood* poverty rate of 22%.

And on and on. ... This is sane? ... This is something we think we, as a species, think we can keep getting away with? No way!

And so there are reasons-galore to vote for a progressive third party candidate.

Moreover, keep in mind that the "success criteria" involved in voting for a progressive third party candidate DOESN'T MEAN THE CANDIDATE HAS TO WIN! ... What if Nader or McKinney or a socialist -- or all three, collectively -- garnered 10-12% of the vote? They would lose, yes, but 10-12% of the vote would undoubtedly send a powerful message to the political establishment.

10-12% of the vote would tell the political establishment and, in turn, their paymasters, Corporate America, that a third party movement is a power to be reckoned with in American politics.

In short, those kind of numbers would, inevitably, move the political consensus significantly to the left.

*And* ... those are numbers that can be built on, added to, developed into a *winning* ticket!

In fact, here's a question you might want to ask friends of yours who don't agree with Obama but will nevertheless vote for him as the-lesser-of-the-two-evils ...

Would you rather have Obama elected, and more of the same, i.e., more dominance of America life by Corporate America; more drift to the right of the political spectrum ... or would you rather have McCain in office (awful as that would be) but Nader/McKinney having gotten 10-12% of the vote?

10%-12% of the vote is a realistic, "do-able" goal.

Keep in mind that Richard Nixon (awful as he was) signed more progressive legislation in the 1970s than Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. ... And that was because the strength of the progressive movement back then *forced* him to sign that legislation. ... Similarly, 10-12% of the vote this November would force the political establishment to accomodate a progressive -- sane -- agenda.

"More of the same" is, quite simply, species-suicide. And "more of the same" is exactly what the Democratic-Republican duopoly represents.

Those in power, the econmic elite, are those who have exploited the earth's resources and and the earth's millions. Over and over and over again. ... They're not going to give up power. ... And they're surely not going to give up power via one of their own, John McCain or Barack Obama.

Power has to be taken, and via a peaceful demonstration of *THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S* power -- the power of the general public residing in their sheer number!

And one of the demonstrations of that "mass-power" is through the ballot box.

Corporatists have power, that we know -- money, military might, a well-functioning, non-stop propaganda machine. But the general population dwarfs them with their numbers.

10-12%. It can be done.

The party now declares itself "united behind a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care."

Isn't that special; well not really, in fact more of the same reason I no longer call myself a Democrat. I might vote for one but they will have to earn my vote.

Whats so hard to understand. As long as we have "for profit" health care, the parasitic providers will continue to find new and improved ways of denying us care to increase their profit.

Gee I think 30% off the top for administrative cost is more than reasonable. Why stop there, lets just call it an even 50/50.

We all know the "guaranteed health care for all" will wind up the same as the prescription benefit for Medicare as a massive give away to corporate providers at the tax payers expense. Until the revenue is gone, standards of medical care continue to deteriorate for all, and the conservatives can just sit back and whine about knowing it wouldn't work in the first place.

Next up, Republicans will blame the Democrats for the failed health care, failed economy, failed war and miserable state of the military while we continue our cyclical downward spiral to oblivion. And the American people will eat it up. As for me, I think it's time to get off the ride; I'll just sit this one out.

Poet
Read my posting about the wifes last stay ( a week ago) in hospital in Canada. Now if you are in the US would you be able to afford that coverage? My wife even with haivng cancer still has 100% COVERAGE. A private company would drop her coverage or charge a fortune or try to find a loop hole to get out of it.

Another reason not to vote for Obama.. not out of a belief that a third party candidate can win, but to avoid having to take partial responsibility for the debacle that results from the attempts to actualize this absurd claim that insurance companies can change enough to make their product affordable for those who are poor and have a myriad of poverty and poor nutrition related health problems... look around you, check out the crowds at Walmart... these are the under and uninsured and the proposed Democrat health care proposal is just more of the same with its teeth imbedded even further into the patheticly unaddressed health quandaries of the working poor.

At Law wonders:

I only recently started reading Commondreams and this is one issue that comes up that I don't understand and don't necessarily agree with. Why is it a given that single payer is better. There is always lots of very strong support for it but why? Isn't the issue that some people can't afford health care and we need to provide them with decent healthcare?

************************

No the issue is not just that "some people can't afford health care". That is the effect--the cause is allowing private unaccoiuntable corporations to determine who gets how much coverage.

There are only two ways that a corporation can cover expenses, and pay share holders their expected dividend on investment: They either raise the cost of their product or they deny claims for this that or some other reason having to do with nothing more complicated than greedily hanging on to as much of the money they collect as possible.

By making the entire population their base of support, a single payer plan can raise money more effectively by tax increases and control costs more effectively (if they only would) by bargaining with big pharma and other providers for the lowest price possible through large scale purchasing.

I have never heard that single payer would outlaw private health insurance, it would just give everyone a less expensive alternative and "the magic of the market-place" would work its will. (bwaahahaha!)

Help save the insurance companies - vote Obama!

Canada coverage what my wifes operation cost me. PLS READ
Got the amount today in the mail for my wife who was told she had cancer stay in the hospital .
Phone 5$ (I had to pay 5$)
semi private room for 3 days that she was alone in 75% of the time 350$ ( I PAID NOTHING)
Cost of major surgery that was one surgeon one assitant surgeon two nurses and one anesthetist Cost of surgery, I don't know I never get that bill as it is paid in full.
I have said it before voters, phone write and tell your elected people what Americans want.

When Hillary was in power, 1992-93, her
power for Insurance had Zoe Baird the chairman
of Aetna doing the design. We got nothing.
Hillary was also on the board of Walmart.
Hillary was pushing for Nafta, Hillary
pushed jobs to India.
Hillary and Bill have become multi-millionairs.
Why do we need them?
The democrats in this country are being sold out again. What is the problem with the Women?
They are the ones giving the Clintons power
again.

Nothing at all will really be done to increase governmental services unless something is done in the economic realm, and with Obama and his Wall Street advisors good luck. If Obama WERE to announce for universal healthcare, let's say someone slipped some acid into his coffee and he had a bad trip, what would realistically happen? The investors would see one thing, inflation, the dollar would lose value and the economy would tank. I'm betting my third nut that that is exactly what his advisors are telling him. So even if he weren't ideologically opposed to universal single payer healthcare, which he is, he'd have to be willing to go against the basic precepts of "free trade", which is not going to happen.

Something can be done to expand governmental services but the elites would have to be willing to go after the parasitic financial class (which they are themselves a part of), to take back the vast amounts of wealth they've accumulated for themselves without adding a damn thing to society. Does anyone think that is likely? Does anyone see a mass movement around that would force that kind of change?

Me neither. I'll work towards that though and have to decide if I want to vote for McKinney (who gets no love even from the left), Nader or the "progressive" Trojan horse.

ATLAW

Fight your own fight in Canada for proper health care, and let us fight ours here in the U.S. My oldest daughter languished in a hospital in Seattle for three month with breast cancer and was told she would not live to Christmas, all because the FDA would not approve a new chemo therapy that was being used in Canada, so because her husband is Canadian we moved her to Canada where she received the new inhalant chemo. She is now in full remission. The FDA has now approved the new therapy.

"Obama, soon to be the Democratic nominee, has stopped short of proposing to mandate health coverage for all. He aims to achieve something close to universal coverage by making insurance more affordable and helping struggling families pay for it."

While disappointing, it is a step in the right direction. What we really need is universal, single payer health care as the rest of the industrialized world has shown. We are dead last in health coverage and health care in terms of getting it to all the people.

Let's face it - the American people for all their "support" for change, do not want change. And change can mean something different for each of us.

There was a thread here on CD a couple of days ago about good samaritans and working for the common good. As a nation, we are a long, long way from a people and a society that are willing to work for the common good.

So, in the mean time, we will have to take our changes in increments and hope it's enough. That, and pressure lawmakers in Washington relentlessly to finally start working for the common good.

When McSame is inaugurated in January, the number of Americans without health coverage will soar well above 50 Million and many more people will be DWW(Deceased While Waiting) for some type of coverage, and many will be children.

One more thing, if you want to vote for a progressive against the Dems, you should at least join the party and vote Green for Cynthia McKinney, and help build an opposition party. The only thing you're building with a Nader vote, is his ego.

I enthusiasicly support voting for the Less Evil Party!!!

Good God is that depressing ...

Just doing a quick calc in the head. If the 54,000,000 Americans without insurance number is accurate and insurance mandated and costs lets say 5000$$ per year, thats 250 billion more dollars a year to insurance companies.

They gotta be salivating.

PK

Well, ATLAW, I'm so glad you have everything under control and can pay out thousands of $$$ to your insurance company every year. The trouble is, some 47,000,000 of us can't. I'm for a single payer plan not only because I'm currently not covered, but also because the whole healthcare delivery system in this country is corrupt and broken. Until proper healthcare can be deliverd to every US citizen regardless of his/her economic situation, I will have a real problem with the greedy corporations that run the system now. If we redirected some of the money that we lavish on our military, we'd have the finest healthcare in the world instead of its most efficient killing machine. If you can't understand this, perhaps you should be visiting websites other than this one.

we don't get single payer because the Dems refuse to talk up it's merits:
1 - choice of doctors,
2 - broadest possible pool meaning lowest per unit cost (everybody is in),
3 - one coverage package,
4 - less overhead
5 - impartial medically-based cost control (vs. current bean-counter-based cost control or "pay once then churn"),
6 - reduced health/tort litigation - if you know your health care will be covered you don't have to sue somebody to pay the high cost when you suffer an injury.
7 - single payer more or less equals Medicare for all and Medicare already works well - but would of course work better with everybody in and with price negotiation between pharma, along with providers, hospitals and government.

The Dems could stand for all this without surrendering any terrain on "market based solutions, blah, blah, blah". This IS market-based. It's not national health as in the UK.

Of course that would require the Dems to actually stand...

As Gil Scott-Heron's grandma once said, "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything..."

Taxation without representation ... and so why are we so surprised when the majority is not heard above the roar of a few hundred lobbyists who shove piles of money into the pocket of those we so stupidly elect to cover our backs while we as wage slaves give our lives over to the "Corporate Tower of Babble". It must be that we no longer speak the same language, that we have become the peons of the new age of Corporate Gobleization. Over 54,000,000 American citizens have no health care at all, and 80 of those who do have health insurance have to fight like hell to get the coverage they pay through the nose to get ...... and the corporate lobbyists scream "give us more" and they get more by stuffing more dollars in the pockets of the well trained congressional lapdogs. We voted power away from the republicans, only to have the Dims move in and take over with their own group of lobbyist who want their share of blood. Can anyone in America tell me when Ralph Nader lied to us? When during any one of his speechs did he lie on any subject relating to the needs of the American people. Anyone out there when Ralph Nader lied to us, and when did those in office now not lie to you?

Greed is like alcoholism, enough is never enough.

National Health Insurance (single-payer)
Greens: Support
Republicans: Oppose
Democrats: Oppose

"Advisers to Obama and Clinton both told the party's platform meeting they were happy with the compromise, adopted without opposition or without explanation as to how health care would be guaranteed."
-now that should be a red flag, the details are omitted by design, just trust them

Sounds like typical Obamian. In Obamian there are no red states nor blues ones, in Obamian you can be both a liberal and a conservative, for single payer and willing to settle for less, for war (Afghanistan) and against it (Iraq), for withdrawing troops and for redeployment, for civil rights and against it (FISA), for the little guy and the big guy (NAFTA), both black and white.

In other words in Obamian you can be all things to all people. You can straddle a fence and be in both camps, speaking out one or both sides of your mouth.

In order to speak well in Obamian you will need to be a complete calculator to able to weigh whether it is more politically advantageous to be on one side of an issue or another, or both. The best Obamian speakers don't actually believe in anything (except winning office), which allows them maximum flexibility to maneuver and fish for votes.

It is true that Obama and the Democrats do not deserve the progressive vote. But I wish all you Naderites (Nannie 4:48 pm for example) would stop trying to promote your candidate and throw your support behind McKinney and the Greens. I'm sure that Ralph Nader has a great platform, but he's not going to win, and voting for him will not accomplish squat except maybe give you some self-righteous satisfaction. The Greens on the other hand are a legitimate political party which, while clearly not in a position to win the White House, would benefit tremendously by capturing a noticeable percentage of the vote.
Cynthia McKinney is a peace candidate representing a party with a truly progressive platform.

I think this a bad move, and one that is worse then no system at all.

If you force a person to pay for Insurance , even if subsidized, all that will happen is thosee firms will escalate the Premiums.

They KNOW the Government has deep pockets, thus they can be even less competitive.

I would point out that with the Drug Plan, the drug companies are boosting the price of drugs by something like 3 times inflation and that this in part because the Consumer (GOvernment) can bear the costs.

BAD idea.....but tens of billions more to insurance companies.

I hope the taxpayers in America can see through this.

PK

Cynical as usual, Democrats are using dubious language that will enable them to stab Americans in the back once again, while awarding their big corporate donors in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

I haven't read all posts but Lesser Evilists are leaving this thread alone, mostly. Even *they* can't defend this horseshit.

Now that the Democrat Plan has been announced - Look for all the propaganda that is being generated by the Main Stream Media about "Entitlements". They are calling Social Security Disability an entitlement (meaning welfare).
Social Security Disability is an insurance program that those who work are forced to buy - not an "entitlement".

This is to promote the idea that Social Security has been "Broken", and the idea that the whole country would be bankrupted by a similar single payer plan for all Americans.

The Social Security Medicare and Medicaid systems have been bilked by the same corporations that caused the problem in the first place. (Insurance Cos. Big Pharma, Hmo's etc.) and the war machine which borrows from the Social Security trust fund to continue it's nefarious acts.

First they make a Health "Care" system where only the well insured have good medical treatment. This keeps poor people from getting diagnosic tests and preventive care. Then they make people who apply for disability because of chronic pain or illness wait three years while the government pays to have the patient investigated (and calls them a liar). If finally on disability (after being financially ruined during the process), the only doctors who will treat the disabled person are part of an insurance pool of Doctors that give out antidepressants like lollypops and pressure them to go back to work.

By the time the patient is really old and permanently disabled, the system has only one choice to make a profit - Give the patient the all the expensive diagnostic tests and medications they can justify in the paperwork. In other words, if the disabled person is not going to contribute to the plan of Maximum Productivity by working - Make them like a pod in The Matrix, with Insurance Cos, Pharma, and for profit HMO's all sucking the life out of them (and everyone else who pays into the system) - for profit again.

And if the system is broken, just create more propaganda to blame the elderly and disabled! (Those welfare cheats!!)Thus preventing any true reform like Universal Healthcare and keeping the Insurance Companies and the politicians they have bought in business.

As a former computer person who worked on hospital systems, I must say that the chaotic insurance situation creates a Tower of Babel that is extremely wasteful.

For now let us not consider the profiteering of the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies and the medical supply and service companies. The administrative costs of recovering revenue from hundreds of insurance sources, each with their own constantly shifting rules and data requirements for billing, contributes significantly to inflation of costs. In order to collect revenue hospitals and doctors must divert time, effort and dollars away from employing care-givers to employing billing support personnel. It's nuts.

Bernice suggests that perhaps we could get more traction for single payer in certain states. That is something to think about. Often states' rights have been used against a progressive agenda. Maybe it can be a way to break through here and there.

P.S.

Would that "affordable" health care coverage actually cover illness' and procedures that are currently being rejected today by insurers who are raking-in astronimical profits while many of their paying clients are dying as a result of lack of coverage?

Surprisingly, most of us writing in these threads dance around the most important issue. Clearly, the corporations have bought off the two major parties. Progressives need to line up behind one leader who calls for nationalizing the major industries in this country that have been allowed to run amok. Energy, pharmaceuticals, insurance and airlines are industries that are ripe for nationalization. The myth that private industry can run large organizations better than government is exploded by the actions of the largest industries over the past 25 years.

I only recently started reading Commondreams and this is one issue that comes up that I don't understand and don't necessarily agree with. Why is it a given that single payer is better. There is always lots of very strong support for it but why? Isn't the issue that some people can't afford health care and we need to provide them with decent healthcare? That's great, but why take away the right of other people to have private insurance? I am in Quebec right now and I can tell you regardless of Michael Moore's movie people here are very frustrated wth having this right taken away from them and I have heard personal stories of people having to pay thousands out of their own pocket to save their lives basically because the government healthcare wouldn't move fast enough. After listening to them I am thankful for my private American health insurance and will happily continue to pay for it each month, I save much more in taxes compared to Canadian citizens anyway...

"The party now declares itself "united behind a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care.""

And what percentage of a family or individual's income would qualify as "affordable"?

SOME Democratic members of Congress are fighting for single payer, but it seems the Blue Dogs have the upper hand on health care so far. I find it amazing that they take a simple truth (private insurance makes our health care cost twice as much per person and leaves 47 million people without access except that provided by overwhelmed hospital emergency rooms) and pretend that we can save money and provide care to all WITHOUT changing to single payer.

In Minnesota, Representative Keith Ellison (Dem, Mpls.) is convening a forum tonight at which he and others will discuss how to promote HR 676, John Conyers' excellent single-payer plan. On the State level, Senator John Marty has developed a single-payer tax-supported plan that can/could show America how it's done when it's done right. (Unless our no-tax governor and his version of the failed Massachusetts plan can somehow prevent the Marty plan's passage.)

Ralph has the answers. He is the only true progressive. Dems have turned into lap dogs and puppets for the corp world...long ago. Since Uncle Nafta Bill. (There's his real first name.) He sold us all down the river, or maybe that's wrong its the you-know-what creek, and it's not down it's UP! Go Ralph, go!

There are a lot of Nader supporters here. I voted for Nader in the last 3 elections, and admire him greatly. This is a man who has been working for the common good, and working as effectively as possible in a rigged system, for 40+ years. Every year, every day.

Only the very ignorant, of which we have millions in the US and some here at CommonDreams, would claim that Nader only comes out every 4 years to run because of his ego.

That said, I am going to vote for Cynthia McKinney this time. I think that if all disaffected voters would vote Green, we could get on the ballot next time. The laws in this country are stacked against 3rd parties, and it is difficult to get on the ballots, as josefz pointed out.

Of course, whether they count the votes is another story. I tend to believe that they do count the votes, they just don't tell us what the true total is. So voting 3rd party can scare the ruling class, even if they don't admit our total in public.

Don't worry, Obamaniacs. Your man is a shoe-in. McCain is the Alan Keyes of the US election. He isn't even eligible! He wasn't born in this country. This entire 2 year circus is being performed to keep us frothing about trivialities, while the voting machines have been preset to Obama for months. (Although I used to be sure that Clinton would win)

Modern conservatives have gutted the government and raised the deficit so high that none of the Democratic promises can be accomplished. The American people remain in the dark by choice. Just who in Washington is going to fix things?

We already know the reality. Change happens at the bottom first and slowly works it's way upward. We are clearly in for some very hard times and must change our values to sustain ourselves through the troubled times. The Democrats and Republicans have both positioned themselves to sustain themselves, not us. Today fifty percent of congressmen become lobbyists or work for industries in and around Washington once leaving congress. Also, five of the richest counties in America are in the Washington area. Little more needs to be said.

I'm deeply disappointed that the Dems did not act more aggressively and back single payer health care, because anything else is just more corporate welfare for the insurance industry, which is raping us blind and leaving us all broke.

I've been so completely soaked by medical expenses recently that I've barely been able to make my monthly rent, which is dirt cheap for where I live. My prescription co-pays are outrageous because I am on "Tier III" drugs that don't come in generic, and those in our insurance company's drug formulary that are under the designation of "Tier III" are the most expensive, so I end up paying ridiculous amounts of money for fairly common medications.

I had recent surgery on my left hand that the insurance did not pay for, and I have no clue as to how to come up with the money to pay the bill. I wish I could find a legitimate federal grant to pay off my debts, but there are so many web sites out there that advertise federal grant money available that I am quite entirely sure that 99% of them are scams made to bilk desperate people out of their hard earned cash, so it's hard to know whether there is such a thing as a real, legit federal grant available to help people pay off debts. Then, if there are such things, how one would go about writing a grant proposal to receive such money is another mystery.

So it all adds up to the fact that we have a very broken system in this country that no one has the cojones to address and which means we'll still all be enslaved by the health insurance industry that is a big campaign cash cow for so many candidates that they're afraid to bite the hand that feeds them.

Call me a pessimist, but I doubt that we'll ever get true universal single payer health care in this country. Just not going to happen, at least not in my lifetime, anyway. Too much money and power at stake for it ever to become a reality, sadly. :-(

As the Democratic Party Leadership ("How now, Howie Dean?") hoists both middle fingers to progressives it is time for progressives to vote:

Nader/Gonzalez
or
McKinney/Clemente

Any questions class?

Sell-outs and cowards. But what Obama wants.

This is just another area in which my hard-earned dollars are going to somebody's profits instead of services. In areas of the commons, like health care, privatization is a diversion of community resources (money, time, etc) to the benefit of rich individuals and their agents (corporations). Let them make profits selling salad shooters and SUVs, but keep the commons free of vultures.

"Well all you Dem bashers… when you get your man, McCain, in the white house he will see that your medical care is much more affordable…then you can march in the streets (Whoopee) and he will give you what you need… a lesson in how to win wars and keep the people down. You will all deserve McCain. Good Luck!" Oh please. As if we wouldn't get the same from Obama. Why is it that Democrats cannot come up with a reason to vote FOR their candidate? They support Obama by saying vote anti-McCain. But they have it bass ackwards. It's not that a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. It's that a vote for a Democrat or a Republican is a vote for THE SAME! Run Ralph. Run!

.

Nader will change things.
Nader is our only hope.
Nader is the only choice.
Fight the Two-party system.
VOTE NADER 2008… You'll be glad you did and so will I…

.

cavedweller: "Once in a while, just as in Las Vegas, one of the poor hits the jackpot"

We want a diverse array of opinions among the people regarding whether the economic system should be structured as predatory capitalism or cooperative socialism.

The crisis occurs when the elites drive the government/media/academia to relentlessly promote vicious predation and extinguish or marginalize the peaceful/productive alternative.

Progressives have real contempt for the elites because they deserve it, very simply put. The crisis has reached a point now where we are morally obligated to let the elites complete as much suicidal self-destruction as they can achieve. This is why we offer zero support to Demoks.

If we progressives vote our principles by voting third party candidates and if the Repuks win power, the silver lining of the resulting cloud will very likely be the key to our non-violently achieving significant and lasting change toward social democracy in the USA.

Heaven forbid the Dems take on their Health Insurance masters and do what is best for all of us! Strap each Dem. politician into a chair and force them to watch SiCKO, then strip them of their health insurance coverage (paid for by us) and force them to go to emergency rooms.

Time to abandon the Dems. and get behind parties that truly represent us: Green Party, Working Families Party, or Populist Party.

"Why is it that a Dem compromise always gives their big contributors what they want and shafts the rest of us?" You have to ask? Democrats = S.O.S. When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

The Cowards bent over for Big Pharma and the Insurance Parasites. We need to elect Democrats rather than these republican-lite DLC and Blue Dogs.

Here is an organization dedicated to doing the right thing!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Citizens Alliance for National Health Insurance
http://www.hr676.org/

THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF HR676.ORG, INC. IS TO RAISE FUNDS FOR A NATIONAL MULTI-MEDIA ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE THE PASSAGE OF...

House Resolution (H.R.) 676
The United States National Health Insurance Act

Affordable Single-Payer National Health Insurance for All!

What Is National Health Insurance (NHI)?

More......

Note the pathetic emptiness of Jim Glover's post (2:06 pm). Like all DPA's (Dem Party Apologists), he can't come up with a single specific point to make about health care, or the contents of the article atop this thread. His ONLY "argument" is that all critics of Democrats are "Dem bashers;," & that this will lead to McCain being president.

Isn't it odd that all DPA's are like this? They just have nothing to say, except "McCain would be worse."

Congratulations true believers! Your Demok "can win" masters are working toward guaranteed slavery for you! Expect to pay for healthcare not twice what other countries pay per capita, but THREE TIMES!!

God Bless the United States of America!!!

Here's how the great "insurance" scam works for let's say, Joe, a 55yr old self-employed plumber:

1) Pay $700/per month (in after tax dollars)

2) Have a copay of 30%...of what Healthscam Insurance Co will designate as eligible for coverage

3) That's only after you've met a $500 deductible

WOW!!!

That means Joe who barely makes enough to cover his bills---including insurance---will never, never walk into a doctor's office for fear that the bill for a nurse taking his temperature and drawing blood for a diabetes test will cost $1500---of which he will be responsible for $500 + 30% of $1000 = $800.

Most of the time, he does not know what it will cost up front and when he gets the bill the explanation of charges will be so convoluted that he will have no way of understanding it, let alone fight it.

In other words, Healthscam Inc can hold its "insured" Joe in perpetual terror of seeking medical care, which in turns means that that insured premium is RISK FREE! TOTAL PROFIT! Just think, keeping the COSTS HIGH will make the CO-PAYS UNAFFORDABLE!
It is an ingenious $ytem of extortion and trap$. So the last thing in the world is for the Healthscam Inc to fight for lower price for basic care, prescriptions, or $2000 ambulances!

THE CRISIS IS ABOUT HEALTH CARE....not affordable insurance.

If the lesser of two evils (Obama) NEEDS my vote he will get it. Otherwise I'll vote third party.

The eggs, the insurance companies, will not be broken until we have a government that serves the interests of the people--not that of their corporate masters. When will this occur? When the failure of our system becomes so deep that we experience some sort of a revolution.

www.StudentsForTheEarth.org

Speaking of pathetic, there are still wretched "moderates" around contending that while single-payer is the obvious and sensible alternative to the present lethal quagmire of the status quo, it's still not politically feasible.

The last time I checked, Paul Krugman was one of these-- in fact, his position clued me in to the fact that he IS at best a moderate. (I'd been fooled by visiting a site in which he was admired as a John Pilger or Howard Zinn in economist's clothing.)

Not unsurprisingly, such moderates, IMO, are well behind the curve of public opinion-- they presume that most people are still hung up on the idea that single-payer is "socialism". I don't think that's the sticking point it once was. And moreover, there's a definite self-confirming or self-perpetuating quality to this argument.

Political leaders and the commentariat who argue that the time isn't ripe for crawling out of the muck onto the dry land of single-payer are actually reinforcing and sustaining the status quo. Of course, in the Democrats' case, it's because they place a higher value on the health of the insurance corporations than they do on the health of the citizens they aspire to rule.

I knew there would be some pathetic attempt by a Democrat to fall back on their last argument for Plan B Corporate party- the bogeyman! Used to be Bush, now it's McCain.

I agree with wsws. The Democrats and the Republicans are the same in that they represent and work for the ruling class. For meaningful change, support candidates that represent working people.