"good luck": I am not Canadian. I infer you are Canadian. I am American, as would be obvious if you read my previous two posts. The "we" I was referring to in my last post was U.S. Americans. I was responding to someone who said Canadians pay "marginally more" than Americans for health care; the truth is Americans pay twice as much per capita as Canadians. Thanks for corroborating that with your personal experience.

Hamster:
What part of Canada do you live in?
I have never had a problem with it or wife or kids. I had problems a few months ago and my Doctor had me send the best in the field all 3 appointments were all set up in under 4 weeks. My wife has had 2 operations,my kids 2 each and I have had 2 operations as well and even plastic surgery after the operation. All very quick and with no problems. The cost out of my pocket was next to nothing. Where are these great cost coming from? Canada does get the much cheaper rate on the cost of drugs than the US does.

One other comment-- Someone above commented that Canadians pay "marginally more" than Americans for health care. WRONG. We pay twice as much as the average of all other developed countries for health care, per capita, and Canada ranks in the middle of that group which includes Europe, Japan, Australia, and a few others. We spend 40% more than the next highest, Switzerland. At the same time our health OUTCOMES are dismal. We rank 37th in the world in major health indicators, lower than some 3d world nations. The plain truth is we're getting ripped off.

Teri, Forgot one other response, on the "guaranteed" vs. "single-payer" debate: not that I think it matters much in this context, since it's a non-binding platform position, but single-payer has a much more specific meaning. That is why a lot of us don't care for the word "guaranteed", because that leaves a lot of room for waffling. For example, that mindset could lead to a system where everyone is required to buy health insurance, much like most states require for car drivers. That would lead to simply expanding the grip of the rip-off do-nothing middleman deny-and-reject-and-delay insurance corporations. That sort of system would even require the taxpayers to fund health coverage for those below a certain income level-- more gravy for the insurance corporations! Guess what--- they're trying that in Massachusetts, and that's exactly what's happening. Costs keep going up as insurance corporations keep sucking in the profits. So, yes, you can guarantee coverage for everyone, but the key question is: does a plan address cost? And secondly, who is paying for it?

Teri D.
Thanks for the intelligent contributions. There is a lot of information out there and resources for those who wish to take better care of their own health. Even so, you are absolutely right on with all your thoughts about how the profit- and greed-driven food/pharmaceutical/chemical system contributes to ill health. (Note that the FDA, like most other federal "watchdog" agencies has been filled with industry hacks.) All these issues are intertwined and difficult, but not intractable.

Health care and how expensive it is, how accessible it is, and how it's paid for, can be separated somewhat, however, from that set of issues. Because if someone has an accident, gets badly cut and has a couple of broken bones, has to go in an ambulance to the hospital and get stitches,and so on, and gets bill totalling $8000, (and that's by no means an exaggeration) that's a separate issue from whether the food and chemical industry, and advertising, is making people unhealthy.

Or for another example, if someone gets cancer at 40 and gets months of treatment, and the cancer is brought under control, and the person gets bills totaling $100,000, and goes broke, that, again, is an issue of cost, access, and how it's paid for.

Clearly, "health" is a very large subject with many facets. Single payer does not address the societal causes of sickness, except that within HR676 are programs for an expanded emphasis on preventive care. Single-payer/HR676 does address cost, access, and how it's paid for. And it most emphatically does address getting the corporate profit and greed out of health insurance. (BTW, insurance is not a dirty word. Social security and Medicare are very successful government-run insurance programs, as is state unemployment insurance-- it becomes dirty when profit becomes more important than human health.)

As to your other comments, it's not just Sweden that has some form of single-payer national health plan. Also France, Britain, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Switzerland, and many, many others. And I think it was in traditional Chinese medicine that the doctor would get paid when you stay well. A wonderful concept.

I think there should be a better system with a totally different paradigm. unlikely to work- but interesting concept:

I read in a book, a story that took place in the middle ages- there was a persian(?) in it who is the equivalent of a doctor. He comments that in his " country" ( culture?) that a doctor is paid to keep you well. When you get sick.. he is not paid anymore. This book was historically accurate, so I am guessing that it is a system that existed somewhere in some form.

Now wouldn't that be a good concept if we could do that in this country? We know we have the technology and information to keep people in absolute top health.. so the question becomes- why aren't we in top health....?

It's the paradigm that is geared not toward health, but towards fixing sickness ( hence.. there must be sickness before you are viable...)

anyway- new thoughts and ideas for thought:)

Thomas More wrote:
"I think he needs to talk to his senator and congressman's office if he has been refused medical care on the basis of his transgendered sex."

I told him that but he insists that there is a deeply ingrained prejudice against transgendered people on many levels and that it's considered a form of some kind of bizarre mental illness because so few people, he says, actually know a real transgendered person for what they are - people who feel as if they were born in the wrong body. I tried arguing with him over coffee recently and trying desperately to explain that single payer would cover him, regardless of his gender (he's transgendered from female to male, which is rarer than male to female).

"There is no exclusion based on sex in the medicare regulations that I know of or could find in a quick search."

Well, he says that there are loopholes in Medicare/Medicaid that exclude transgendered people. Again, I don't know because I have private insurance through my employer and have little familiarity with Medicare/Medicaid other than what I've heard through the proverbial grapevine.

Oh, and BTW, my private insurance SUCKS! It hardly pays for ANYTHING anymore. I had surgery in May on my left hand that wasn't covered, sticking me with a whopping medical bill. I'm still recovering from said surgery and it's taking longer to bring my hand around to full function than I expected. I've had extensive physical therapy on it (oh, let's not EVEN talk about the co-pays per session that nearly bankrupted me!) and all I can do is to sit back and be patient and hope that the danged thing stops hurting and gets better and regains full range of motion!

"Single payer if its done right….if you are breathing you are covered."

I agree wholeheartedly and tried to assure my transgendered friend of this, but he wouldn't be convinced. I like my friend an awful lot because he's passionate, funny, interesting and a good conversationalist, but once he digs his heels in about something, he won't be moved, and where his transgender issues are concerned, well, I think sometimes that he thinks that the whole world is stacked up against him. I guess he comes from a fairly wealthy family but was denied his inheritance because he changed genders, causing his family to disown him, sadly, rather than try to come to an understanding of who their daughter turned son is.

I just wish that I could convince him that single payer, done right, WOULD cover him, regardless of the fact that he's had sexual reassignment surgery and if he had not told me that he was transgendered, I would NEVER have guessed. I assumed from Day One that I met him that he was a man and born one. I wish someone would talk to him who can do a far better job than I of convincing him to get behind single payer health care done the RIGHT way so that it WOULD cover him, regardless.

I liked this story. I think it sounded full of interesting insites about how a process worked, a process that people are wondering about and an outcome that people are wondering about. I thank the author for sharing this with us. It sounded like feedback from a regular person.

The DNC just took a giant dump an the American people.

Eric Patton, 2:11: You said, "[... the Democratic Party does not] represent me, and to me they are the enemy." Fine. But I'd suggest you spend your time online at sites other than Commondreams. If the Dems are your "enemy," why waste another moment discussing them?

Donna Smith: Your article illuminates how agonizingly slow political change can be, and yet how determined an activist you are--Bravo!

One small suggestion for all who are fighting the good fight for single payer: Please use the word MEDICAL instead of HEALTH. This may seem trivial, but words evoke images -- and the image of HEALTH is someone jogging down a trail or playing tennis -- someone who doesn't NEED medical care! The image that MEDICAL evokes is someone sick or injured who's getting excellent care from doctors and nurses.

SallyUUKent August 13th, 2008 3:16 pm

I think he needs to talk to his senator and congressman's office if he has been refused medical care on the basis of his transgendered sex.

There is no exclusion based on sex in the medicare regulations that I know of or could find in a quick search.

Single payer if its done right....if you are breathing you are covered.

Thomas More asked:
"Thats just absurd. Are you sure has been refused medicare?"

He says yes and that it's the result of existing loopholes in Medicare that result in his being refused medical attention due to his transgenderism. I can't really say that I understand why because I am not that well acquainted with Medicare/Medicaid, but.....this is what he tells me quite passionately, so.....I dunno......

All I know is that he is absolutely certain that single payer as it is now being proposed will exclude him and others like him. And if that's so....then something's going to need to be fixed, because not EVERYONE will be IN and some folks WILL be OUT if what he tells me is true.

SallyUUKent August 13th, 2008 2:16 pm

Of course he'd be covered. Our law guarantees it. Is he saying that Medicare will not cover him now because he's transgendered?

Thats just absurd. Are you sure has been refused medicare?

I dunno, I have a transgendered friend who insists that even the "everybody in, nobody out" will exclude him because of his gender change because according to him, there is still strong prejudice in the medical community against transgenderism and that it's still considered a mental illness, so he insists that he cannot receive any kind of medical care or insurance as a result. I tried to convince him otherwise, but he insists that no one, not even single payer, will cover him because of existing loopholes in Medicaid/Medicare that prevent him from being able to receive medical care like the rest of us.

Anybody care to comment on that?

don't get me wrong.. I am not saying that the huge agri-industry and food industry is blameless..

but we are part of a social contract.. and we are on one side of that, whether we agreed to it or not, whether we like it or not.

souix- agreed.. it is getting harder and harder to find the healthier food, although there is a growing trend back towards whole foods and " slow food"..

but as a society, we have bought into what the mass media is selling.. yes- they are very good at what they do.. but we are not complete innocent victims. as scott ritter pointed out in one of his other articles ( i think it was scott).. corporations have no conscience. they are about money and profit. they will follow where the profit is. noting the recent headline that even monsanto is dropping the bovine growth hormone.. because no one wants it. so, we can affect the industry.. it isn't easy.. and it isn't always fun.

as for how that applies to health and health care.. how many people really do know the basics of diet, nutrition, common sense care..? what to do if they get a cold, or injury etc.. ? what we know today.. is based on what the television and our doctors tell us. How many people will question their doctors, and present information about their condition? ( noting that the CD population may well not fall into this mainstream population).
the industry shoves unhealthy crap at us.. we buy it. it makes us sick and we go to a doctor who sells us a pill to fix it. there is a huge profit-train leaving this station.. the production of junk. the television. the marketing people. the doctor. the insurance company, the pharmaceutical company.

interesting/ entertaining story about our healthcare dilemma at this site:
http://www.mercola.com/townofallopath/townofallopath.htm

it is a two sided dilemma with no simple easy solution.

and noting.. that they are not presently advocating single payer.. but rather... guaranteed healthcare.. I believe those are subtle but huge distinctions. yesno?

USAN & TERRI D: Your perspectives could dovetail. That is, certainly SOME responsibility does accrue to the individual... the choice to smoke, to eat fried, fatty fast food, to consume lots of alcohol, etc. THAT is choice. BUT... the FACT much of our food has become adulterated in ways the consumer has little control over, often no knowledge off (due to dubious labels, if any, in the case of GM modification or irradiation of meats) at all. So it's BOTH... the "industrial food" giants are into profit and producing UNHEALTHY food. The fiscal realities of modern life for too many encourage the use of "fast foods" or redi-made "meals," and too many products contain trans-fats, corn syrup, artificial colors, preservatives, hidden chemical crap NEVER processed by our bodies (or Mother Nature) before.

Point is, I am conscious of what I eat, and it's getting harder and harder. What is labeled organic is often NOT up to standards, and 80% of soy is now genetically melded with things like herbicide. Fun for all! The near soylent green food stuffed US/world!

TeriD,

Single payer wouldn't be run by these profit seeking entities you mention - it would be run by government, and the hospitals and doctors would be remunerated based on a specific schedule of fees.

And I really have trouble believing that people would be going to the doctor at the drop of a hat. Most people hate going to a doctor even if it is free. Most people hate taking pills too.

And I'm getting tired of all this fad-diet-driven blaming-of-the victim regarding health. It is largely part of the whole capitalist project to make everything the fault of the individual, so they won't even think of solidaristic, collective solutions to social probelems - like publicly run healthcare.

The unhealthy lifestyle choices of USAns, driven by a hundred billion dollar advertizing industry, is a social and political-economic problem, not an individual problem. I'm sure in Sweden there is considerable more regultion regarding the wholesomness of food and asociated advertizing.

This is a rare opportunity to address the actual writer since DONNA actually seems to be following and contributing to this blog.

Thanks Donna for your efforts on behalf of Americans who desperately need "FREE" Medical Care==there, Ive coined better "words"==FREE !!!

In 'SICKO', that is what Michael Moore obtained for the responders of 911==free medical assistance they could not obtain here in their own Nation. He obtained it in Canada, in England, in France, in Cuba, and I think either NOrway or iceland !!! I really love the tie-in to 9/11, too !!

As Michael does, he pulled out of those care-givers the main answer: How can I bring these sick Americans to your countries and you compassionately treat them, give them medical care, drugs, without any cost to them. HOw is it you can do this. The ubiquitous response comes flowing back to Michael: Well these are people, humans are they not, members of our global human race in need of care, and entitled to the best health the global community can provide. WHAT A Concept We are human beings and deserve to become as healthy as our World Community can make us !
Shiblivkov could do an entire stand-up or bend-over on that.

Point of fact, here in the USA we are not humans to the health care system,, we are Payers or NOn Payers; if we are non-payers hospitals are dumping us out on the streets to fend for ourselves. We can't buy that $100 band-aid !
One serious illness and we are bankrupted beyond repair !

DONNA, most bloggers here cannot see why you enjoy so much victory over a few word changes in the Dem Health Care Plank. With our presumptive nominee Senator Obama having already flip flopped on oil drilling; FISA wiretapping; and a host of others===how is it then we can expect the promised CHANGES in medical care for Americans ???

I personally think it will be interesting to see how it is Senator Obama caves in to Big Pharma, BIg Insurance, Big AMA, just like he has caved in to Big Telecon and Big Oil and Big AIPAC !
And of course, that ain't Change, that's the SAME OL Stuff.

Senator Obama sure can enflame an audience with his Fire and Brimstone speeches about Hope, Change, Promise== great inspiring speeches==but He himself and his actions and votes show us it is Audatious to believe his words will ever come true. AND, "words" are what you write us about today !!

hamster

I agree preventative medicine is a good thing. and, understood about the instances where people put off going to see a doctor when they probably should get help. I do not mean to be putting blame on the patient, but you do have to acknowledge that something like say, a heart condition, diabetes, obesity related health issues etc.. those that are most prevalent and health-threatening.. are not things that just happen incidentally overnight. They are the last things in a long line of health-lifestyle choices.

I am all for preventative health coverage. In fact, studies have been done ( via blue cross and an independent company) that have proven beyond doubt, that preventative health care, including chiropractic and nutritional etc.. do in fact lower health care expenses for the insurance company.

this is good for the individual since it also means he/she is having less instance of higher end care needed.

But essentially, we are not an informed, educated population. We are a fast-food nation that wants the treat without responsibility. We are under a barrage of advertising that is highly conflicting, to be good looking, to get a perfect body in 20 minutes of exercise... to eat abundantly, and food with fake fat and fake sugar...

In sociology they teach.. never give up the means of food production.. the people who no longer produces its food is enslaved to those who do. We can no longer feed ourselves.. and worse.. the people who are feeding us do not care for our health- just our money.

the same will happen with universal health coverage. it will be about profit.. since it is run by HMO's, insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. now there's an axis of evil for you...

I am not saying it is ideologically bad.. I'm just saying it could play out very badly.. for the people...

yes- but those countries.. sch as sweden ( not researched here, so guessing).. have a better informed citizenry. It isn't universal health care per se, that I have reservations about- rather, how it will play out in THIS country's population. We already have a population that is addicted to pills ( both legal and non).. a media that has romanticised and glamourised illness, and corporations that will reap huge profits.. it could well become much akin to blackwater and war.. when profit is the bottom line.. who has a vested interest in keeping people well... ?

Teri
By the way, your point is well taken about people making good choices about their own health. However, the current system actually causes UNDER utilization of doctors because people don't want to pay the exorbitant prices... so people put off care for necessary treatment until the cost is far greater... or they die. This is well documented.

Hey Teri D: "I do have serious doubts about the benefits of universal health care/coverage."

First of all, most other industrialized countries have it and the problems you imagine either don't exist or are not really problems. Do your homework. The highest average healthcare costs per capita in these other countries is half ours. Take a look at pnhp.org for discussions of all the myths of national health care. HR 676 is not a pipe dream, in that something similar to it already works very nicely in other countries. Any arguments about why it wouldn't work go up in smoke when you open your eyes and look at the rest of the world, where the status quo isn't blind allegiance to unfettered capitalizm.
HR 676 is the template for AFFORDABLE health care available to EVERYONE. Notice that in the platform discussions the word "affordable" never came up. Note that in Massachusetts they have a mandatory health insurance law (the state will help you if you can't afford it). The predictable result is that the private insurers are making more money while still giving out the same crappy product.

I am usually pretty progressive and liberal. But I do have serious doubts about the benefits of universal health care/coverage. Given today's reality, of HMO's, pharmaceutical companies ( profit-mongering corporate), and our lovely marketing industry.. we are turning health into a consumer commodity. Won't universal health care turn us into a nation of sick people running to a doctor with every bump and bruise? To a doctor who will write us a prescription for a medication for bumps and bruises that we saw on the tele ( and he probably saw also).. We request this or that.. or worse, he suggests boo-boo-med that his pharmacy rep has promoted to him, for which he may well get a kick-back.. all unknown to us.. the consumer.

It seems to me, that as with all things.. we need to learn more about what our health needs to be.. how to assume responsibility for it. In this way, we will be less likely to get sick. If/ when we get sick, less likely to need a doctor. and if/when we do need a doctor.. we will be informed consumers that can ask the important questions, be able to weigh what we are told.. and make good choices about our health care options.

simple example- peppermint is one of the best things for almost anything stomach related, in terms of gas, upset stomachs, nausea/vomiting. A few drops of peppermint extract which has no ill effects on the body, and no corporate profiteering-motive...

we are becoming a society of helpless victims.. and a perpetual patient status will not cure that.

Whether it is politics or health care or fuel.. we need to stop pointing fingers and take ownership into our hands.

tailcap August 12th, 2008 1:31 pm
"Notice the uphill struggle for single payer healthcare in the Democratic Party. Why do you need to lobby your own party to do what the base wants?"

I would suggest to you that this problem lies in the fact that the base of the Democratic party reflect the views of a very small portion of the electorate and does not reflect the opinion of a majority of the Democratic party.

The other problem is that they have no leadership.

"Can pragmatic progressiv state reasons to vote for Democrats that aren't reasons to not vote for Republicans (lesser-evilism). Please explain why we should put our faith in Democrats. What have Democrats done?"

I am not sure what a progressive is these days, I'm a liberal, but I'd say I can't think of one reason at the moment other than that old lesser-evilism which is a fact of life. Democrats have done nada so far.

"And then I plan to work like crazy to elect more progressive members of Congress and hold them to single payer, guaranteed healthcare for all, HR676. And as John Conyers said, we'll win the day when we get a Republican or two to show some leadership and join the other 91 co-sponsors. I am not willing to give up or give in."

Donna,

Thank you for your work - it is necessary and useful.

While I view many of the antics of the DNC with a jaundiced eye (and I think you'll agree that they have deserved it), I also realize that the real work is being done by people like you - those who are not hobbled by cynicism and impotence. The fact of the matter is that in this atomized country, even small victories are hard won. So, congratulations to you and godspeed in your future work.

Universal, single payer health coverage/care is the right way to go. Most other industrialized societies have known that for a long time. While not perfect, it is the most humane system. I hope that eventually even the DNC realizes that.

Tailcap - the money for the two wars is borrowed money. Its not money that the treasury takes in every year. It would add to the current deficit. Who's to say the Chinese want to finance national health care?

Even if the military budget were cut in half, the other two entitlements are $53 trillion dollars in the hole. Lets first fix those problems before creating a new one.

These are the unfortunate facts. for years both parties have taken money from the payroll tax and used it on the "general" fund -anything from bike trails to machine guns. Lets face it, until we have politicians that can budget responsibly, why give the creeps another dime?

Donna got nothing on her well-funded junket and chat with Democratic Party leaders.

Here's how the trick works. The Democratic leaders in Congress got her to give up an effective strategy for a slogan.

So, Donna gave up "single payer," which is a proven and effective means of delivering healthcare to a population. In return, she got a slogan, "guaranteed healthcare for all," which depends on a lot of unspecified circumstances, and doesn't necessarily challenge the positions of the insurance companies, which currently take one third of every healthcare dollar.

As someone mentioned above, the CNA is much smarter on this issue than Donna lets on. I should also ask who are the people invited on these junkets? If they come to such bad decisions on behalf of the people, then why does the party base continue to fund the Democratic Party?

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m46386&hd=&size=1&l=e

People are dying of starvation in Gaza. why is nobody on Common Dreams talking about it?

A lot of people on this thread are very sophisticated.

Why not take this nearly breathless Victory report by one of the few on-the-ground-near-the-top Grass Roots Activists on her Grandma face?

Assume she is an honest idealist.

What are the practical implications of her idealistic machinations?

The Platforms of the Dem and the Rep parties mean little. The last time they paid any attention to them was in 4000 B.C. The only people who really pay attention to their Platforms are the parties of the Outs.

Watch the next 4 years as the Dems bring us "universal health care."

I am a 65-year-old. The guvment should have informd me of my options but it did not. I am very angry.

Really, I want to kill, but I do not know who(m) to target. I really want to kill.

I have killed a lot of sentient beings. I no longer care (I killed a lot of mice.). Bush has killed and/or displaced MILLIONS of humans. Does he care? I say that Bush no longer cares if he ever did but in fact, I care. I am a liar. Bush is a liar. Conyers is the Committee Chair holding the Power of Impeachment. He has abjured. He is guilty.

I respect the Author and her Idealism, but I seriously doubt that anything substantive will come from the Democrat Platform. They are a bunch of fucking liars and Indiana's Dem Senator, Evan Bayh, is among them. He is in the running for VP and he ought to be skewered.

Watch out.

-30-

pragmatic progressiv August 12th, 2008 7:57 pm writes, "I hope you enjoyed the last eight years of Republican rule because without the Democratic Party, you are guaranteed more horrendous policy,..."
-honestly, I hate the Democratic Party and I am amazed their supporters actually believe the Democrats are holding the Republicans back and not enabling them

Listen, pragmatic progressiv Listen can you please make a list of what the Democrats have done for you in the last 2 yrs, last 4 yrs, last 8 years?

If you can't, then you have no argument and are doing the standard DPA CRYING WOLF, with an absence any reason to vote for your candidate Obama, other than he isn't a Republican. Policy-wise can you explain the difference between Obama and McCain on war?

Barack Obama is ultimately articulating a position of sustained troop levels in Iraq based on the conditions on the ground and the security of the country," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. "That is the very same position that John McCain has long held."

Can pragmatic progressiv state reasons to vote for Democrats that aren't reasons to not vote for Republicans (lesser-evilism). Please explain why we should put our faith in Democrats. What have Democrats done?

This is what Democrats have 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:_____________________________________.

The Democrats promised to end the war if we put them in control of the Congress. We did and they lied. What makes pragmatic progressiv believe Democrats are bound by something they write down on a piece of paper when their actual record shows they don't listen to us anyway.

Why the hell should I vote for Democrats when all they offer is a continuance of war, give aways to Big Business and the destruction of our civil rights (FISA)?

The stupidity of ignoring the complete prostration of the Democratic party before the Republicans and claiming the big bad wolf McCain is coming and the Democrats will save us is dumbfounding.

Why didn't the Democrats save us by impeaching Bush and ending the war?

Go Greens! Go Nader! Go anybody but a God-damned Democrat!

marc melchiori August 12th, 2008 9:13 pm
The devil is in the details and nobody wants to say how to pay for it.

-not as hard as you think. If the Democrats actually did what the people want them to do and ended the war/occupation that would free up $168,000,000,000.00 a year. Then if the Democrats actually put people ahead of war and war profiteering they could actually cut military spending instead of increasing it as the Democratic "antiwar" candidate Barak Bush wants to do. That's how we could pay for universal health care marc melchiori.

.

On Wednesday, August 27, right during the heart of the Democratic National Convention, we will be holding a Super Rally for 5,000-7,000 people at the University of Denver Magness Arena. (Check out our new Nader/Gonzalez video promoting our rallies here.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmcIlEIQtcs

And we'll be hosting a second super rally in Minneapolis on September 4th at the Orchestra Hall during the week of the Republican National Convention.

Why?

To protest the corporate control over our political system and to call for opening the presidential debates.

.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/single-payer/
Single Payer
[ snipit ]
In our current system, there are thousands of different payers of health care fees.

This system is a bureaucratic nightmare, wasting $350 billion—close to a third of all health care spending on things that have nothing to do with health care—overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments, huge profits and exorbitant executive pay.

In addition, there is over $200 billion in computerized billing fraud and abuse.

Nader/Gonzalez support a single payer system that would save the $350 billion and apply those savings to comprehensively cover everyone without paying more than we already do.

All Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services.

Patients would have free choice of doctor and hospital.

Costs would also be controlled in part by the single payer negotiating fees and making bulk purchases.

Vote Nader/Gonzalez 2008...

.

Donna Smith says John Conyers thinks the next step is to get some Republican co-sponsers for HR676.

I think it might also help if one, just one Senator might introduce a companion bill in the Senate. So far no one in our royalist House of Lords has seen fit to do so. Not Bernie Sanders,not Sherrod Brown, nor Russ Feingold, nor Ted Kennedy, nor even Ms. Hillary Healthcare Clinton. Whose money is muzzling all of them?

The devil is in the details and nobody wants to say how to pay for it. No one wants to suggest tax inceases with a 53$trillion entitlemant deficit for social security and medicare. yes that was 53$ trillion. It is the inconvienent financial truth.

Donna, I have no doubt you are sincere and care deeply about health care for all. That said, I'm with all the posters who have given up on the Democrats as a group (yes, there are a few progressive Dems in Congress). Maybe something good will come of your hard work on this issue but I doubt it. As others have said, the insurance industry continues to reward those who defend them, the majority of Dems and Repubs.
The money will dictate the policy, as usual.

My grandmother used to say, "If you're looking for something wrong, then you deserve to find it."

I don't know what folks expect from a country that is almost entirely corporate owned. Too many Americans are asleep at the wheel, and it is not going to be easy to enact the necessary progressive reforms to get this country back on track.

Now that we're sliding towards a fascist state and economic ruin, people are finally starting to pay attention. Perhaps a groundswell of citizens demanding single payer healthcare will get us where we need to go.

Until that day, Donna Smith, CNA, PDA, and other grassroots group are pushing forward in the hope that the troops will soon arrive.

It is certainly easier to complain about the Democratic Party then it is to roll up your sleeves and get to work in it, transforming it into what it should and could be. For those seeking the downfall of the Democratic Party, I hope you enjoyed the last eight years of Republican rule because without the Democratic Party, you are guaranteed more horrendous policy, which will decimate the middle class, the environment, and end government by the people.

I daresay the naysayers on this thread were nowhere near Pittsburgh demanding stronger language in the Democratic Party platform.

The Democratic Party, the big engine that cant!

Dem Party Apologists love to point out that not all Dems are corrupt, that there are good DemocRATS like Kucinich.

First, they can't see that these good Rats like Kucinish are kept in the party exactly to fool the base into thinking that not all is lost.

Second, good Rats like Kucinich have absolutely no power over the party leadership, he knows it and he doesn't mind being used as a puppet.

The Democratic Party must be wiped off the electoral map if American wants its country back.

If I believed in reincarnation, I'd suggest that George Carlin has been reincarnated as Mordechai Shiblikov, 2:25pm.

Thanks for your always caustic and entertaining insights!

[...] This morning I stripped naked, bent over and grabbed my ankles and had my bulldog, Luigi, smell my ass. I turned around and saw the expression on his face hadn't changed, so I presumed that right now I am healthy, more or less.
__________________________________

Sure it wasn't rigor mortis, Mordechai? :?: ;)

Respectfully, any other group could have done an amendment if they had followed the same path -- and PDA is made up of wonderfully committed, hard working single payer advocates. In retrospect, it would have been a great strategy to have many,many amendments all supporting guaranteed healthcare for all, everybody in and no one left out health care, using every strategy possible. Time was short, PDA made a great call to dive in or no one else would have.
I am proud of them. I am not willing to wait for single payer for a third party to gain power or for any other group to gain power -- single payer, guaranteed healthcare for all is needed as soon as we can get it. And I am so grateful for all the groups working on this -- don't want to see people beat up on one another as all want the mess fixed. But if that advances single payer, so be it.

Thank you all for working and for commenting. It matters. It still matters.

Now, is there something more we who believe in single payer could do in Denver and in Minneapolis to still have our voices heard and advance this movement even more? I know with so many awesome advocates out there, ideas will come and so long as we still have a few days, there is time to be heard. I read that someone wanted to flood the convention floor with single payer supporters who are also delegates, so who is working on that? There is still time left. Or would the energy be better spent on Congressional campaigns? Or is there room for all the action?

The Progressives at the DNC meeting did the best they could with what they had ... which in part, is a group of political pragmatists. This is not an ideologically committed party of the faithful to the common sense and morality of single-payer universal healthcare.

Some hope --- the Hail Mary --- is that after he is elected, Barack will lead or at least not obstruct, a single-payer initiative from Congress. Absent a majority in the Senate strong enough to stop filibusters, the dream will not come true.

Falling on one's sword (a McGovern nightmare) or ignoring the notion (which I would bet the house on) that Barack's endorsement of a single-payer universal healthcare plan today would result in the bundling and gift of hundreds of millions in cash to McCain's campaign by September 1 is foolish.

The pragmatists would like us to believe that they can make the insurance industry and its cohorts in profit generation from healthcare play nicer with the public. They don't say it. They imply it. We are smoking different substances.

I submit that they will be able to sell this concept to the ill-informed and hopeful. Meanwhile, those of us who have been down this mine shaft before should be wise enough to afford the enthusiastic the time and room to learn from the descent. There is plenty of time. Many stars must align before anything remotely resembling a single-payer universal healthcare system becomes reality.

Meanwhile, Donna Smith et. al. are doing the best they can with what they have to work with amongst the policy wonks, political operatives, and multitude of agendas that they have before them. No one should question Donna's integrity or sincerity. This is no picnic for her or others involved in attempting to forge change that we might believe in from the insults to our intellect that we cannot believe it.

The stance made by the Progressive Democrats of America on healthcare communicates the message that the PDA still considers the status quo as legitimate, that PDA members are still as heavily invested in the status quo as the Repuks in the far depths of the extreme right gutter. With this message conveyed that the PDA will tolerate extremism-as-usual, they wipe out the possibility of meaningful healthcare reform. Everyone knows that if the PDA were to make loud demands for serious reform they will gain strong public support. But the PDA isn't prepared to be the agent of change. Its members have benefitted too much from the gilded-age status quo. THIRD PARTY ALL THE WAY!!

...

Samson,

It is _Rahm_ Emmanual.

And in all fairness, i think, or hope, that Donna's piece was intended to be an internal memo to her fellow PDA'ers - this explains all the "we"'s and "ours" with regard to the Democrat Party.

The commondreams editor should have prefaced this article with a remark explaining this.

DPA (Democratic Party apologist) argument #4: Not all the Democrats are bad, just look at Kucinich.
-Right, but how much influence does Kucinich have versus Pelosi and how many Kucinichs do the Dems have versus Blue Dogs?

This is a typical DPA red herring argument. If the Democrats had chosen Dennis Kucinich to be their presidential candidate then this dog of an argument might actually hunt.

Just look at who the majority of Democrats chose to be their leader if you want to know where the majority stand: NANCY PELOSI

When I pick up an apple and it's rotten I don't go on a wild goose chase looking for some tiny part that isn't spoiled. I toss the apple. It's high time to dump the Dems who have proved they cannot stand up to Republicans have nothing to offer but lip service and cave in after capitulation.

Go Greens! Go Nader! Go anybody but a God-damned Democrat!

Back in the old days, them Dixie "Democrats" were enough of a pain. Nowadays, they're all Repugs and yet there are still sellouts in the Democratic party left. This goes to show that the two party duopoly just ain't worth shit. Sorry Obama hacks but we're sick and tired of fake shit. It's 3rd party progressive/independent or NOTHING !

--"Dennis Kucinich is not Raul Emanual."
--This is correct.
--The Democrats put Raul Emanual into a key position controlling the money that goes out to candidates for Congress.
--The Democrats tried hard to kick Dennis Kucinich out of Congress by putting up a well-funded and well-supported primary challenger against him this year.

What more do you need to know about the Democrats?

"The Western PA group specifically asked not to have their name associated with the amendment — as they felt it was not strong enough. I honored that directive."

I know that this isn't your intent, but you seem to be presenting to those on your left a "my way of the highway" attitude. If they asked not to be associated with the PDA amendment, than you can still recognize organizations, by naming them, who are working very hard in spite of not having a seat at the table. Some of these people are working very hard, and have even faced police harassment and apprent spying at the behest of oue of our more odious Republican congressmen, Tim Murphy.

To the person wondering why the Dems would abandon something simple, popular and cheap like single payer for something complex, less-popular and more expensive like this, the answer is simple.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The key question to ask is this. When push really comes to shove. When there are meetings in the Obama White House on their congressional agenda, or when a bill comes up for a key vote, which way are the Democrats going to go?

Are the Democrats going to pull out their dog-eared printout of this platform plank and decide that they must support Americans who need health care? Or are the Democrats going to listen to the lobbyists sitting in their office from the insurance and hmo companies?

The Democrats have a very long and proven track record dating back to at least the mid-90's that says they'll listen to their lobbyists and set a policy that screws the rest of us.

Donna, I'll be happy to contact my local Green Party and urge them to support 'single payer'. Of course, that's an easy phone call because they already do support 'single payer'. I won't waste a dime on calling a Democrat.

USAn:

Thank You

Social Security, Medicare and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 all made real differences in people's lives. During those battles there were conservative Democrats who opposed social change and their were progressive Democrats who supported social change.

Donna Smith is a living testament that the same is true today.

All Democrats are not the same. Dennis Kucinich is not Rahm Emanuel. Those are facts, not assertions. Folks are defined by there positions on the issues.

Rosa Parks sat down on a bus and refused to get up. What at first seemed like a small gesture, we know acknowledge as a critical action.

Let's take the fight to where it leads us. Not to where we want it to be. Changing the language from "insurance" to "guaranteed healthcare" is huge. Thank you Donna. This may seem like a small gesture, however, our continued united work together will prove this to be a critical action that changes history.

"It's not made by great men" -- Gang of Four

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

-- The Beatles - Revolution

The Western PA group specifically asked not to have their name associated with the amendment -- as they felt it was not strong enough. I honored that directive.
I support single payer, guaranteed healthcare for all. Period.

Donna,

Could you have at least have given the "local folks" the coutesy of providing the name of their organization - or were you too dismissive of them to even find out? They were and are the Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Single Payer Healthcare.

And can you explain how their leeafletting for genuine single payer healthcare weakened your amendment? The PDA Amendment was wishy-washy. If you want something, you ask for it by name. The name is universal, free, tax-financed, single payer healthcare. That is what the leafletters were doing. And, isn't it a bit presumptuous for you to assume that they are attacking their own - i.e. you represent their interests?

The first lessons that these often-compromized, seat-at-the-table political groups like the PDA and Move-on need to learn is to respect diversity of tactics and viewpoints - particularly those to their left. A great W. Pennsylvania institution, the Thomas Merton Center,is on it's last legs due to a contingent of "progressive" board members and moneyed supporters with no respect for diversity of tactics, resulting in the mass resignation of all the youthful board members and the collpase of it's most active projects.

"...we'll need to be vigilant in our calling for honesty and for clarity as we move forward."

Although I fail to find anything in your report that anyone at this meeting was calling for honesty and clarity, I am willing to set aside a cynical viewpoint that your efforts were not completely co-opted by the same Democratic Party machine that is frequently oiled by pharmaceutical, "health care" and insurance insiders.

As I am willing to do that, perhaps you can give us some insight into what you consider to be honesty and clarity? At what point are you willing to admit that you were lied to and blinded? How do you intend to communicate those revelations to us?

... and please! Your pretension that you are only communicating to Democrats, and that nobody else matters is insulting beyond belief. The fact is that Democrats are desperately depending upon the Independent vote to win. You might want to remember that. Posts like yours just reinforce my personal belief that I will not be voting for Obama.

Out of all the articles on the health care issue that could have appeared in Common Dreams, again we have one that is the typical democratic party fluff, full of smoke and mirrors but no substance.

And there is a value in taking one small step at a time, but you shouldn't confuse it with getting taken in all the time.

The millions of health care dollars aren't being wasted, they are going into someones pockets who wants to keep it going into their pocket. And they now have the democratic party leadership in their pocket.

And it is difficult not to dismiss anything that a Hillary supporter says. If 'Bob' supports this wording, it indicates that there is little reason to believe that it would actually support affordable health care for all. In fact, it proves the opposite, that while this is another program promoted to 'help' the common person it's real purpose is to enrich the health care corporations. That's guaranteed. (just think NAFTA)

Just look at how the democrats handle impeachment and funding of the war if you want to find out how every person will be 'guaranteed' health care.

Peace and justice. Vote third party.

So much time and energy wasted on an empty effort. As I said the other day, I expected some sort of spin, thus "language victory."

The goal of the Democrat Party is the same as the Republican Party: To gain control of the US government for the benefit of their corporate owners, the difference being nuances in propaganda that targets different groups. Well over 100 Million citizens either lack health insurance or have coverage that is essentially meaningless given restrictions and their ability to pay hefty deductibles. I can't imagine any other issue that would propel a presidential candidate into office more readily than a vociferous committment to singlepayer-universal heathcare. That this isn't happening shows well how DLC really feels about the issue--it doesn't like it one bit. One need only recall the Clinton FUBAR over this same issue back in 1993-94, and the proof that later came out that it was the Clinton administration that sabotaged its own policy initiative. The insurace industry is very much intertwined with the financial industry; and for the latter to keep its head above water, the former must be allowed do continue reaping its obscene profits. Democrat Party insiders know that HR676 is a dead issue, like impeachment, which is why there's no trumpeting of the issue because its percieved "failure" will hurt its chances to remain in power.

For all her energy and enthusiasm, Donna Smith should have become a candidate instead of pursuing something as quixotic as universal healthcare.

I support single payer, guaranteed healthcare for all -- even for those who don't now get in the battle and try. I urge everyone to do all they can do to reach whichever party and whichever office they can to support single payer. HR676 needs to be the law of the land.

Save the insurance companies! Vote Obama!

Donna Smith writes:
> And, believe it or not, I actually witnessed some truly noble behavior
> by our party.

And the antecedent of "our" is?

Meanwhile, today's local paper had a brief look at what freedom and democracy mean inside the Dem party. If you wonder why every Dem seems to spout the same party line, take a look at what's happening to this delegate who wrote a critical email (GASP!) about Obama.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/12/dems-call-clinton-delegate-on-carpet/

"Colorado Democratic party officials have asked a delegate who supports Hillary Clinton to come to headquarters and talk about a complaint that she wrote a negative e-mail about Barack Obama.

Party Chairwoman Pat Waak confirmed Monday night that the party's political director, William Compton, sent the request to Sacha Millstone, who was elected as a Clinton delegate to the Democratic National Convention."

.....

"Millstone, of Boulder, could not be reached for comment. However, in an interview with Denver's 7, she was critical of Compton's request.

"I think one of the reasons I got this letter was to intimidate me," she said in the interview. "I thought it sounded very un-Democratic, and I was completely shocked."

Millstone added that the letter is "a very clear message. . . . Keep quiet if you want to come to the convention.""

Of course, this is all just a giant load of bull.

Has the House leadership signed on to HR676? Are the leaders pushing this, including trying to hold party members to a party line to support it? Are leaders threatening committee assignments of any who don't sign on? Has the Dem leadership been backing and funding primary challenges against those who don't sign on?

What about in the Senate? Is Sen. Obama a co-sponser of an identical bill in the Senate? Why was the DNC and the Obama campaign even negotiating on this in the first place? Why aren't they leading the charge?

All of which leads to the question? Do you expect to see this become policy after the election? Since Obama and the Dem leadership has to be drug kicking and screaming to a weak bit of language that doesn't really do much, it would seem the answer is 'not very likely'.

If you want single-payer, vote Green.
If you want more of a health care system that's designed by the insurance companies and HMOs for the benefit of insurance companies and HMOs, vote Democrat.

One more time:

The Dems don't care about We, the People, as amply demonstrated since 2006, not counting NAFTA and some other abominations.

Until we rise up as a monolith and conduct a general strike which won't end until Bush, Cheney, Feith, Powell, Rice, etc., and their Dem enablers like Pelosi, Conyers and BHO are sent to the Hague for war crimes, they won't listen. Why should they? They have guaranteed pensions and healthcare for life. We beg and plead for crumbs, and like Grandma, slobber all over them with affection when they hint that one might be falling on a floor near her, soon.

I've vote nearly straight Dem through 2006, and, to continue the Who meme, Won't Get Fooled Again.

Wake up. Let's plan the strike. The elections are meaningless.

Prove me wrong.

Peace.

what good are party platforms if not an expression of ideals?
what is the dem. party platform for ending the war?

Hi Donna,

Thank you so much for moving us forward. The whole point of your story is that we move forward one step at a time. Martin Luther King was also criticized for not advocating an "All or Nothing" strategy. Martin Luther King was a brave and noble advocate, so are you!

Please continue your work. Just like Martin Luther King and Ghandi, you are moving us forward one step at a time.

We all have to make some compromises in life. Unless the detractors above are armed revolutionaries, living outside the law, they have contradicted their own "All or Nothing" philosophy.

It's fine to disagree with someone's strategy. However, it is outside of civil discourse to "mind read" someone's intent, and use "name calling".

The incredible amount of time and energy you've donated selflessly, shows love for your fellow human beings. Therefore, in the name of love, we thank you.

I don't get this confusion about Dims. OF COURSE they have NO INTENTION of providing Medicare For All. WON'T DO IT. NOT EVER. Health care is one of the 6 Vultures that MADE these "politicians". Think of the Vultures eating human flesh and defecating politicians. We are the FOOD on this Plantation. BHO wants to be Head Overseer and will say whatever is necessary to get there. Think Billy Clinton with Debt Bondage as a restored legal concept, targeted first on women and minorities, then generalized to the rest of you. It's the next step. Natural Progression.

WE ARE NOTHING BUT MEAT FOR THEIR MACHINE. Until we act. WE ACT. If we act. Not quite enough pain yet, apparently.

And yes, it will become more horrible than you can imagine, and Americans will do what???? Nothing??? Chris Hedges said it, "People who don't have a breaking point are slaves."

Whooooo Arrrrre Yuuuuuu? Who-Who? Who-Who?

Your pain can be transformative. The question is, transform into what? We answer that question in our lives with every action we take. Even if that action is to curl up into a fetal position. Silence is an action. Doing nothing is an action as powerful and meaningful as any other.

Interesting times. "How low can they go?", doin' the Limbo now>?

Dogs, as you know, are reportedly able to smell or sense the presence of disease. This morning I stripped naked, bent over and grabbed my ankles and had my bulldog, Luigi, smell my ass. I turned around and saw the expression on his face hadn't changed, so I presumed that right now I am healthy, more or less. This is my health care plan.

Note: I am going to assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the commenter "donnasicko" is also the author, Donna Smith, of the above essay.

>> Donna Smith writes (in the essay):
>>> And, believe it or not, I actually witnessed some truly noble behavior
>>> by our party.

> I (Eric Patton) wrote:
>> And the antecedent of "our" is?

donnasicko writes:
> I aim to claim this language fully

I appreciate the work you, Donna Smith, are doing within the Democratic party. However, you did not answer my question. I asked you what the antecedent of "our" (in your essay, obviously) is. You answered, essentially, that our refers to yourself. However, our is a plural pronoun, and therefore cannot refer to only you.

Thus, I say that, if by "our" you mean "any group including Eric Patton," I must respectfully disagree. The Democrats are in no way, shape, or form "my" (i.e., Eric Patton's) party. They do not represent me, and to me they are the enemy.

If you wish to work with John Conyers in order to pressure the Democrats -- of which, as a member of Progressives Democrats of America, I can only assume you belong -- fine. But this is the same John Conyers who, while he is indeed a co-sponsor of HR 676, is also a liar when it comes to his plans to begin impeachment hearings against Bush.

The moral of the story is this: I have no issue with pressuring Democrats. However, don't try convincing me they're my friends.

And when I ask you what the antecedent of "our" in your essay is, give me a straight answer, not typical Democratic doublespeak.

I actually witnessed some truly noble behavior by our party.
-Oh my God, all they did is add a few words on a non-binding piece of paper which is as worthless as the Democrats who promised to end the war in 2006.

Democratic Party platforms are marketing gimmicks designed to win votes.

In 2004 the Democratic Party platform included:
(3) Peace - more than just the absence of war it means protecting America's security wherever it is endangered and promoting democratic values around the world.
-And we all know how that worked out.

Noble?
-Noble would be ending the war and impeaching Bush!

Go Greens! Go Nader! Go anybody but a God-damned Democrat! (Sorry Grandma)

It is truly sad to see that a publicist for the California Nurses Assn (CNA) -- an organization that has been in the forefront of the fight for single payer -- would pen this apology for a sell-out.

What's even worse is that she brags about negotiating the sell-out, calls it a "victory" and commends the DNC platform committee.

Maybe if she got a little more sleep, she would have seen things a bit more clearly.

-that language shift from universal health "coverage" to guaranteed health "care"

So Donna Smith, this is a nice tale of meat grinders and "folks" you talked to and someone named "Bob". It's very riveting, really, I'll save it for my next insomnia attack.

I presume this is Democratic damage control but since you are a "communications specialist" I would have expected something a little less clumsy.

What I don't find in this long-winded narrative is an explanation of why the Democrats are avoiding something that is understood and has a fixed meaning: "single payer universal coverage", something that is less expensive, something that gives every citizen health care, and are instead proposing modifications to the price gouging, bankruptcy creating for profit system, now going under the moniker "guaranteed health care".

Truly unbelievable that in a country that claims that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" in an unalienable right, that YOUR HEALTH is treated as a COMMODITY...with health and life being sold only to those that can afford it, and be damned to those that can't....and you call yourselves a civilized nation...

I aim to claim this language fully and with all the hope I am told will bring about real change. Even if the higher level folks at the DNC meant only to calm the waters, there are always unintended consequences. I'd like to make those positive and transformative.
And then I plan to work like crazy to elect more progressive members of Congress and hold them to single payer, guaranteed healthcare for all, HR676. And as John Conyers said, we'll win the day when we get a Republican or two to show some leadership and join the other 91 co-sponsors. I am not willing to give up or give in.

Notice the uphill struggle for single payer healthcare in the Democratic Party. Why do you need to lobby your own party to do what the base wants? Exactly who do the Democrats represent anyway? Is this just a DPA explaing PDA as damage control for their party?