Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- 37 Percent of People Completely Lost
- An Open Challenge to Michelle Rhee and the Corporate Education Zombies
- If Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, Why Should You?
- Introduced Constitutional Amendment says: 'Democracy for People, Not Corporations'
- Which Members of Congress Are Standing Up for Economic Decency – And Which “Progressives” Aren’t
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Real Cure for "Obamacare": Medicare for All
As court fight looms, healthcare crisis is far from over
With the approaching Supreme Court showdown on the President Obama’s 2010 health care law (the Affordable Care Act, modeled on Mitt Romney’s law in Massachusetts), the U.S. healthcare system remains a dysfunctional mess, as nurses bear witness to every day.
(Photo: Melissa Suran/MNS)
In late March, the Court will devote six hours over three days to oral arguments on the legal challenges to the law – the most time the Court has given a case in 56 years – accompanied by a possible record 100 “friend of the court” briefs, Kaiser Health News reported February 16.
While the ACA had some undeniable positive elements, including permitting young adults up to age 26 remain on their parents health plan, and several limitations on insurance industry abuses, such as barring them from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, our health care nightmare is far from over.
As nurses have observed the past year, the economic crisis has accelerated broad declines in health linked to job loss, high medical bills, and families having to choose between paying for food, housing, clothing or healthcare.
As to the law itself, despite its name the ACA has done little to actually make healthcare affordable. Out of pocket health costs for families continue to soar largely unabated. Nurses now routinely see patients who have postponed needed care, sometimes even life-saving or life-prolonging care, because of the high co-pays and deductibles.
A Commonwealth Fund study last November, found that the U.S. stands out among high income countries for sick adults having cost and access problems with 27 percent unable to pay medical bills in the past year, compared to from 1 to 14 percent in other countries, and 42 percent skipping doctors visits, recommended care, or not filling prescriptions.
Dental care is a prime case study. A Pew Center report February 27 cited a 16 percent jump in the number of Americans heading to emergency rooms for routine dental problems, at a cost of 10 times more than preventive care with fewer treatment options than a dentist's office.
Nationally, premiums have jumped 50 percent on average the past seven years with more than six in 10 Americans now living in states where their premiums consume a fifth or more of median earnings.
Fifty million Americans still have no health coverage. Another 29 million are under insured with massive holes in their health plans, an increase of 80 percent since 2003, according to the journal Health Affairs.
The percentage of adults with no health insurance at 17.3 percent in the third quarter of 2011 was the highest on record, up from 14.4 percent just three years earlier, Gallup reported.
On quality, the U.S. continues to fall far behind other nations.
What should have been a shocking, under reported study from the University of Washington last June found more than 80 percent of U.S. counties badly trailing on life expectancy compared to nations with the best life expectancies. Some U.S. counties are more than 50 years behind their international counterparts, meaning they have the life expectancy that those nations had in 1957.
One reason for this disturbing news is the regression in death rates for child bearing women. The U.S. ranks just 41st in the world, and it has been getting worse, according to the World Health Organization. The average mortality rate within 42 days of childbirth has doubled in two decades, from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987 to 13 deaths per 100,000 in 2007, partly due to a 10 percent cut in federal spending for maternal and child health programs the past seven years.
Those who think more handouts to the private insurers and other healthcare corporations will improve these dreadful statistics should think again. The wholesale domination of our health by the same Wall Street types who tanked our economy is exactly what has caused the falling health barometers on access, quality, and cost.
Most of the rest of the world has discovered a more humane, cost effective alternative, a national or single payer system, such as expanding and adequately funding Medicare to cover everyone. Even in countries where politicians have proposed privatization or sweeping health cuts they are being met with an aroused public unwilling to trade their health systems for the broken model we have here.
Whether the 2010 law is fully or partially thrown out by the courts, repealed in Congress, or fully implemented, the need for real reform, single payer/Medicare for all, will continue to grow. For now, the fight for single payer is being taken up state by state, a movement that America’s nurses will continue to promote.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
77 Comments so far
Show AllMedicare for all? How will insurance companies make mega-profits so they can bribe Congress?
Demoro needs to qualify her assertion that "kids staying on their parents medical insurance plan until age 26 is a positive aspect of Obamacare" by noting the reason this provision is needed because millions of us older US workers are delaying retirement by 5, 10, 15 or more years for no reason other than to stay on our relatively affordable employer sponsored medical insurance.
Had Obamacare done nothing more than reduce the age of Medicare eligibility from 65 to 60, millions of us would retire today and open up millions of jobs for young Americans who are experiencing the highest unemployment rate of any age group.
Of course, quite a few people who are unemployed due to disability would be able to get back to work, or never would have had to stop working, if Medicare covered them beginning at 60.
I'm sure that DeMoro's CNA/NNU conglomerate will now stand up to Obama and the Dims.
The smartest decision I ever made was to desert the US Army in 1970 and go to Canada.
The first reason it was my smartest decision is that I didn't take part in the orgy of mass murder that the US was conducting in Viet Nam, a revoltingly immoral atrocity against both the people of Viet Nam and the millions of Americans, Australians, South Koreans and others who took part.
The second reason is that by going to Canada, I became eligible to take part in the universal single payer system that exists here. Our system has its flaws, but almost every Canadian is glad that we don't have to deal with the gross failures of the US health care system.
My doctor is great. I've been seeing him for almost 20 years, and i never had to pay a penny for his excellent care.
I've been to hospital (we don't say "the hospital" up here) several times over the years, once to heal a blood clot in my leg; another to repair a broken kneecap. In both instances I found the care I got to be exactly what i would have hoped for. While I recovered from my broken kneecap I also got excellent therapy at home. All of this was financed by the public system.
I have also been involved in making health care policy in my 12 years as a Member of the City of Toronto Board of Health; on the board of a hospital, on the District Health Council at a time when it was leading a total restructuring of the hospital system in Toronto, and as Chair of the Citizens' Advisory Committee at two hospitals. I was employed through most of this period as a Community Health Advocate at one of Ontario's Community Health Centres.
I gained an intimate knowledge of the workings of the health care system in Toronto, the issues it faces, and its internal and external politics. I came away with serious concerns about some issues -- the pressure of rising costs, the growing influence of the corporate sector, the imperfect coordination among different providers, and the relative lack of attention to prevention compared with the heavy emphasis on cure.
On the whole, though, i learned that the system works pretty well for most people. I learned that most health care professionals are really trying to provide the best, most compassionate, and most up to date care. And I learned that a single payer system creates such huge savings in administrative costs that it is a real bargain compared with the gross waste inherent in a profit-driven system like the one in the US.
The main lesson I learned is that the value of the Canadian system goes far beyond its cost savings. That value is that Canada, by creating and maintaining its excellent, universal health care system, commits itself to a vision of citizenship that goes far beyond mere common residence in a country that upholds basic democratic rights. I am glad to live in a country that values its citizens and permanent residents enough to enlist all of us in mutual help and care, democratically governed and available to all, as part of our national heritage and part of our common culture.
I hope that Americans can unite in such an effort as well, and endow their country with a health care system that puts into practice the good old American tradition of working together for the good of all, of offering neighbourly help in time of trouble, in showing the rest of the world that American innovation, practical wisdom, and decency can still astonish us.
Can't happen, too many lobbyists and republicans.
Obama and the GOP have functioned as a tag team to assure that the AMA, pharma and insurance industries' control of "health care' is strengthened. Obama hasn't even pretended to support progressive health care since he moved in to the White House.
thank you for clear depiction of canadian health care.
i wish i had the good sense to emmigrate back then. life makes it impossible now, but i continue to get the urge.
Solidarity
Canadians need to be vigilant in pushing back on Prime Minister Harper's ongoing efforts to Americanize health care in Canada. Corporations are buying politicians in every nation on earth to assure that they control other nations' governments the way they control the US Government.
Ianista,
How can one have the best health care in the world when it is only available to a small
percentage of the population? I would agree if this top notch care was universal. For many, the United States has a lousy health care system. How can we possibility hold up that worn out, old, ridicules, we're #1number sign?
Thomas Gilbert-
As studies have shown via the commonwealth fund, even the persons with access to that higher tier of health care in the USA do not necessarily get better care.. Advantages in life expectancy and survival rates to various types of cancers and procedures exist even when comparing between the wealthy in other countries.
Lanista seems to belive that because very wealthy people go to the USA for advanced procedures this somehow proof that the USA has the worlds best system. I would point out wealthy Americans also got to places like Switzerland (Steve Jobs went there) and wealthy Arabs also go to France. Peyton Manning went to Europe for surgery on his neck.
The argument Lanista uses is the same one FOX news uses when it boasts of the US system and mentions all those Canadians that flock south to get health care. Those commentators will NOT mention that the number of Americans that go North to Canada for health care dwarfs the number going south even when adjusted for population size. (A study done in Calgary showed that 1/3rd of Hospital beds in a major hospital were being used by Americans using fake cards)
In a one year period Ontario estimated 600000 medical procedures were obtained illegaly by US Citizens using the health care system.
This number alone DWARFS the number of Canadians in total that go South for health care. (it is estimated that last year in all Canada 16000 Canadians went to the US for health care)
Added to that is the fact that most of the Canadians that go south to use Health care in the USA PAY for it while those Americans that go North do NOT.
GW,
Thank you for providing a more detailed response to Ianista's comment regarding the location of the "best health care in the world."
Ianista posted an opinion, you, on the other hand, posted the facts.
Take care, GW
Thomas Gilbert-
Ianista,
Advances in allopathic medicine (biological approach to disease management/cure) are global accomplishments which are not confined to researchers who, by accident of birth, share a particular geographic location. Modern discoveries in medical science, and its applications, rarely, if ever, can honestly claim an exclusive national origin. A researcher may be from the United States, or France, but many of the "discoveries made" would not have been possible without a shared knowledge base that knows no national boundaries.. In other words, the scientific community (medical and otherwise) is a global community and not a national one.
Yes, medical research performed by scientists born in the United States has added much to contemporary allopathic medical knowledge, but these accomplishments were not achieved in isolation. With regard to such accomplishments the same can be said of the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Germany, Canada, Italy and etc For example: A German "discovered" such and such based on an American researcher's reworking of a Canadian researcher's findings...etc. etc.
As far as where the physicians are trained is concerned, one does not have to check. They are trained in Germany, France, Sweden, Italy, Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, United States, Spain, Australia, and many other countries around the world. All have centers of excellence and specialization. Those not trained within the borders of the United States of America are not necessarily inferior to their American colleagues. There are good physicians and bad physicians everywhere..(Including the United States)
"Next thing I'll hear is that Western culture is the pits and the civilization we have is due to Darfur."
I really do not know what you mean by the above quote? Are you presenting a relative comparison between Western culture and the horrible conditions in Darfur? A comparison such as,: We are a "civilization" of murdering bastards but somehow we are morally and ethically superior to those unfortunate people in the Sudan? Or, do you just mean that we eat better? Well, some of us do.
I have great medical coverage by the way.
You take care
Thomas Gilbert-
.
My goodness I get tired of hearing that America has the best health care on earth and keep the government out of my health care. WTF America has NO health care, we have the most expensive thievery health insurance scamming system on earth with the absolute least amount of success. Medicare for all or better yet single payer no deductible, no co-pay. Raise taxes on the wealthy 10 percent, to pay for it, they will still pay less than in the fifties. who cares what happens to the health insurance companies, do they care what happens to you? Screw the republicans and blue dog democrats that all voted against health care for Americans, we pay for theirs, the ungrateful bastards.
Although I recall a 2010 vote for unprecedented corporate welfare for insurance and pharma industries, mischaracterized as "health care reform", I don't recall a vote for OR "against health care for Americans".
Yes of course, but it's still "off the table"
Health care for all makes the country strong. Expenditures for health care are profitable for the nation. Those who undermine public health care to privatize the wealth of the nation are traitors, even as they cry alligator tears for our troops fighting endless capitalist war. They are enemies of our nation and speak with a forked tongue when they talk of wanting to help America and profess belief in God. Those who oppose medicare insurance for all citizens know that our civilization prospers when the citizens are healthy and strong and they do not care. The greedy ones are like Sadam Hussein who had seventy billion in secret banks on secret islands and was willing to starve the people to steal more.
Many young Americans have no employment opportunities other than enlisting in the military since those "traitors" are also denying employment opportunities for millions of young Americans. Millions of older US workers who haven't been laid off are unable to retire due to medical insurance premiums that are increasing at 10 to 30% per year (even more for those with "pre-existing conditions") while wages are flat or declining. This condition will be exacerbated when the full force of Obamacare kicks in in 2014.
Obamacare's "individual mandate" is indeed unconstitutional, lanista and I hope SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs, however, SCOTUS' pro-corporate track record does not bide well for ruling a corporate welfare program such as the "individual mandate" unconstitutional.
The Clinton Plan of 1993 was financed through a payroll tax upon employee and employer that was based "upon ability to pay". The rate started at 7.6% and rose to 15.6% split between employee and employer. The system operated upon a basis of competitive bidding by insurance companies to provide group insurance to a large group of people (perhaps a hundred thousand or so). The lowest bidder would get the contract. Naturally the insurance companies didn't like this idea at all! They spent a lot of money (hundreds of millions) fighting the plan and enlisted the Republican Party and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to defeat it.
Republicans introduced the idea of a "mandate" as a counter proposal since it would allow the insurance to charge whatever they wanted, make good profits, and by being able to sell into a "captive market", do very well for themselves. Mitt Romney was the first to establish such a "mandate" in Massachusetts because it put the economic burden on the people instead of on the insurance companies or the providers of medical services. In other words the most well off would be free from regulation while the least well off would be forced to pay whatever the most well off wanted to be paid.
Obamacare, like most other Obama legislation is therefore refried GOP legislation that the Democrats take the heat for since they vote it in while the GOP avoids voting for it.
I am praying that the SC strikes down the "affordable care act." It is our best hope to start fresh and fight for universal care.
Here in Iowa, the state insurance commission has approved two Wellmark rate increases since the affordable care act passed, raising premiums 26% in little over a year.
Our local 'health care coalition,' an amalgamation of Obamabots, is scouring local communities in an attempt to find individuals who have actually been helped by the legislation so that they can publicize the "benefits." They don't want to recognize the families all around them who are struggling and dying needlessly just as ever. God help us;.
Obamabots continue to characterize Obamacare as a "baby step forward" rather than admitting it is a giant leap backward. A baby step forward would have been incrementally reducing the age of eligibility for Medicare until all Americans became eligible at birth. That was LBJ's vision when he signed Medicare into law in 1965.
Obamacare gives unprecedented power to pharma and insurance industries to control the whole system more than they control it now.
Strange that our terrible SCT could save us from our even more terrible Opharma bill.
On a language note, I don't like "Obamacare" because it implies it provides "health care," when in fact it provides a scheme to benefit the health insurance companies.
Remarkably enough, when I suggested "Medicare for all" to an administrator of a group I belong to, her response was, "Oh no! Socialized medicine." I tried to explain to her that other seniors I know are happy with Medicare. From the reaction on the Right, you'd think most Medicare participants hate the program, and want it replaced with the same disorganized mess everyone else must use. The truth is, probably less than 10% of seniors disapprove of this "socialized medicine". This simple fact needs to be driven home every time some fool cranks out the "socialized medicine" objection. Even right wing seniors love their own Medicare ...
US history proves that the only way the workers ever got ANYTHING was when the 1% believed that Socialism was a real threat. The New Deal would not have happened if 10% of the US electorate had not been voting for leftist parties during the 30s.
Until more Americans start supporting parties way left of the Democrats, the 1% will continue to redistribute wealth until they have it all and the 99% has nothing.
An Obamabot who obviously owns medical insurance stocks recently told me that "single-payer would reduce medical costs by only 20 to 25% and would not control costs". I guess that is the propoaganda the pharma and insurance companies are feeding their shareholders.
I told him that at the company I work for, anybody who could reduce costs 15% could be the CEO.
Elimination of the private health insurance industry would reduce costs by about 15%. Private insurance from well run companies has an "overhead" of about 20%. Medicare on the other hand has an "overhead" of about 5%. Any further reductions are going to have to come out of the drug industry, the medical device makers, etc. The doctors and dentists fees no doubt can be negotiated down somewhat too. However one driver of high medical costs is the cost of medical educations. Realistically in the case of MD's you're talking a total of at least eight years before they can actually start practicing, longer yet for specialists. And all this time the interest on their student loans is growing. It is not unusual for doctors to start their practice with a student loan of a quarter of a million dollars hanging over their heads.
Paying off interest and principle on a loan of that size is a massive burden to be carried by someone starting out, even in a high paying profession like medicine. The rest of the developed world has solved this problem through government assistance. The US however, makes people finance their own educations beyond high school. A few may obtain "help", but many have to finance the entire thing themselves. This is one of the reasons why US health services cost so much compared to what people pay for these same services elsewhere in the developed world.
Yes, Ray. Vote for a third party candidate, not the lesser of two evils, like the vast majority of "progressives" and "liberals" who never saw the death of a poor person they couldn't ignore.
People shouldn't be glib about something as important as this (note, tj and ED). The health argument, including the statistics given in this article, is so much more compelling than the empty, ideological rhetoric of the blowhard right.
fact is, i'm more of a blow-hard lefty.
as to referring to the CNA/NNU "conglomerate,' i'd suggest that you investigate them beyond their rhetoric, which is really great -- some of the most progressive in the labor movement.
however, cna and its offshoots and affiliates have corroded over time, largely because of lack of internal democracy and access to a steady and large cash-flow from their members.
in any case, i can say with extreme confidence that the cna and its affiliates will endorse obama and numerous conservative Dims in the upcoming national elections. no matter what they say, no matter how they rationalize it, that is what they will do.
just as they will continue to cut back-room, intra-union turf deals with the seiu and other anti-union "unions."
i take single-payer seriously enough to be aware of those facts, no matter how much i would like to believe the rhetoric of the cna/nnu.
tj, Unfortunately, I think you nailed it.
You want single payer? Vote for it ....
Stein will be the only one on the ballot who promotes it
http://www.jillstein.org/
That is not true. So does Stewart Alexander.
You want single payer? Fight for it, and make any and all partisan electoral politics you engage in be consistent with your commitment to the struggle. Then, you are not merely selling a personality or a platform, not merely making a personal choice that aligns with your values, you are declaring yourself to being committed to the struggle.
http://www.stewartalexanderforpresident2012.org/
We give critical support to the demand for the immediate abolition of all private health insurance companies through the creation of a single-payer health system. We see single-payer as an important step in the direction of a fully socialized national health program with full standard and alternative medical, dental, vision, and mental health coverage for all. This system would be publicly funded through progressive taxation and controlled by democratically elected assemblies of health care workers and patients. The National Health Program should improve, and replace, Medicare and Medicaid.
We call for a health care system that emphasizes preventive care, respects patients' privacy, gives special attention to the needs of the physically and mentally disabled, and conducts treatment and research unimpaired by sexism, racism, or homophobia.
We call for full funding for AIDS research, prevention, and treatment. We demand full civil rights for people living with AIDS.
We call for public ownership and worker and community control of the pharmaceutical industry.
We call for educational programs to help prevent drug addiction; for voluntary treatment programs for addicts and alcoholics; and for the availability of free, sterile needles for those still using IV drugs.
We call for the reinstatement of funding to community mental health services so that low-cost or no-cost treatment is available on a voluntary basis, with clients' rights respected. We oppose involuntary incarceration for treatment without due process.
We support the right to choose or refuse medical treatment, the right to die, and the right to assisted suicide.
We call for full community decision-making regarding the creation, organization or elimination of public health care facilities.
"You want single payer? Fight for it, and make any and all partisan electoral politics you engage in be consistent with your commitment to the struggle. Then, you are not merely selling a personality or a platform, not merely making a personal choice that aligns with your values, you are declaring yourself to being committed to the struggle." -- Two Americas
I agree with you!
On February 28, 2012, truthdig.com published a lengthy article about/interview with Stuart Alexander. For anyone who is interested in learning more about Stuart Alexander, here is the link:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/make_your_vote_count_for_socialism_20120228/
Has Common Dreams published any articles about 3rd Party candidates? Just curious!?
I remember reading an article on CD about Roseanne Barr when she declared herself a candidate for the Green Party. Jill Stein was mentioned in the article.
Although Amy Goodman interviewed Rocky Anderson on Democracy Now!, and CD links to Democracy Now, I haven't seen/read any articles on CD about Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party. I will admit that I don't have time to read all articles on CD every day.
With the systems as corrupt as they are, I doubt that anyone from any party can implement policies that are "we the people" friendly. The systems, all joined at the hip with corporate U.S.A. and Wall Street, need to be dismantled and completely restructured. Nothing will change overnight.
At the very least, though, shouldn't progressive websites work to inform us?
Just asking!
OCCUPY EVERYWHERE whenever you can!
The Rocky Anderson interview on DN was pretty good ... he's certainly not afraid to go after Obama and the democrats. Which, unfortunately, seems to rise to level of an unusual event on DN lately ... unless Ralph Nader is on.
.
I'm not going to say Amy's coverage of Obama hasn't been critical... but every now and then there's a segment of Obama fluff that leaves me wondering .... why? For instance; Noble O gives a speech dedicating a museum for black history month ... "In touch" rock'n roll O has BB King and Mic Jagger give concert at the white house .. Man of the People O hangs out with Spike Lee at the Apollo in NYC ... O apologist and former advisor Jared Bernstein gives an absurdly positive review of O's Big Important Speech ... progressive sellout Russ Feingold uses the tired old democrat canard (and Thom Hartmann staple) that we must vote for O for the sake of the judges....
.
It seems like CD tends to publish a lot of articles that are authored by outright democrat apologists (John Nichols, and the yokel with the cowboy hat) .. or people who treat the cratz with kid gloves (Krugman and Reich.) ... I like the commentors on this website tho!
Kay Johnson -- This year, especially, the alternatives to the Dem/Repub slate are very important, because the general public has a much lower regard for Congress and the Dem/Repub candidates than in past election years.
I've been asking for months why CD doesn't feature more about the progressive candidates. No one has said why, to my knowledge. Maybe CD's non-profit status has something to do with it. At any rate, it's been frustrating to me that one of the most visible and interesting progressive sites is omitting full coverage of the people who are way above the "major" candidates by almost any measure except support by the 1%. This isn't the case with other progressive web sites, right?
Why TA - you have become a "salesman" for your cause - "advertising" your candidate. Is that because you "believe" in him?
I thought elections weren't an agent of change - so why is your candidate proposing so many "changes"? You have said elections don't produce changes, so why elect your candidate?
I have explained my position on this many, many times in response to your posts. If you disagree with my position, make an honest argument against it out in the open, rather than following me around baiting and taunting.
Yes, you have - you have claimed elections are not a vehicle for change, that folks who tout a candidate or party are simply "selling" and "advertising" their "beliefs" and that "beliefs" have no legitimate place in politics, only "objective" truth.
I have engaged and disputed you on numerous occasions re your claims - so when you appear with an "ad" for a candidate/party that claims he will "change" things - and one can assume you "believe" in it or you wouldn't be "selling" the "product", methinks that is worthy of note ...
As for an "honest argument" - well i have made plenty of those and it appears that, now that you are engaging in the same behavior you have previously decried when engaged in by others, you are making my argument for me ..
As far as "following you around" - hmmmm, methinks you had best look in the mirror - who followed who in this exchange ..
Pointing out "flip-flopping" ain't "baiting and taunting" ....
Again....
If people are going to be obsessed with electoral politics, if people are going to promote candidates, if people are going to promote the idea that elections are the way to control who is in power, and given that people here claim to be in opposition to the political right wing, then I think that unambiguously left wing candidates should be mentioned. That is why I mention Alexander. I am not promoting or selling the candidate, and I am not presenting voting for the candidate as a solution to anything.
Beyond that, if people are going to actually be involved in canvassing, rather than merely debating about how each of us is going to cast or individual votes, then I think being involved in a Socialist campaign would be a more powerful opportunity for discussion politics with people.
As far as elections not being a vehicle for change, my position is and has always been - feel free to disagree - that election results are an effect and not a cause of social and political change. The outcomes reflect the national political discussion. If the national political discussion is dominated by discussion of outcomes, the process is short-circuited and no changes can ever occur elections or no.
Any and all changes in election results and legislation in this country came after and as an effect of organizing and mobilizing by people outside of the legislative and electoral process. First came the Abolition movement, and only then came the rise of the Republican party and the election of the Lincoln administration. First came the organized Labor movement and militant and powerful left wing organizations, and only then came FDR and the New Deal. First came the Civil Rights movement, and only then came LBJ and Civil Rights legislation.
There are no examples of social and political change being initiated by elections or legislation, except for elections and legislation that advance the agenda of the wealthy and powerful few.
If you have a counterargument to what I am saying here, then make it. Stop manufacturing false characterizations of what I have said. I have not "flip flopped" on any of this, and claiming that I have is baiting and taunting.
I think that the truth is that the mention of a Socialist candidate interferes with your selling of the Green party, and that is the reason for your false and misleading statements about this.
And, yes, for the most part you have responded to me, and always for the purpose of trying to attack the messenger rather than responding honestly to the message.
"I am not presenting voting for the candidate as a solution to anything."
Great, then we can exclude your candidate from consideration as voting for him won't "effect" anything, now will it? I'll remember that. Have you told your fellow party members that you really don't think there is any point in having a candidate, as he can't "effect" any change?
What does "canvassing" mean to you, TA?
"There are no examples of social and political change being initiated by elections or legislation, except for elections and legislation that advance the agenda of the wealthy and powerful few."
In that case, why bother with a platform that promotes change for the "masses", as your candidate does? Obviously we aren't at the point where the "movements" will result in the "effect" you desire, are we, so why waste your time on a candidate?
The Rep party as a 3rd party that represented what folks increasingly wanted - and translated those wishes at the polls. They thought it made a difference - and it did. If they had followed your lead they wouldn't have bothered - who needs legislation and by extension, those who enact it (chosen at the polls), if you have "movements"? Elections are the means for choosing those who would enact legislation that instantiates the purposes of those movements. The movements are all around us now - there are plenty of them - what they lack is a political arm. THAT is what this discussion is all about.
Your "mention" of a socialist candidate was more than a "mention" - you advertised his platform in the same way I "mention" mine - I am not "selling" any more than you are, TA and you know it.
The "mention" of your candidate doesn't interfere with a thing - You have issues with the Green party - you have made that clear in the past, so one could just as well argue that you don't want any one engaging a third party in the process until your party has it's act together. Your big fear is that lefties will politically engage with some other party - so you wish to discourage engagement altogether until you are ready - THAT's becoming more and more clear, TA.
If you really "believed" what you were saying about elections, you wouldn't bother with a party OR a candidate .....
"The outcomes reflect the national political discussion. If the national political discussion is dominated by discussion of outcomes, the process is short-circuited and no changes can ever occur elections or no."
No one, but you, is short circuiting anything in talking about elections - to talk about elections is to talk about ideas - oops, that is verboten, too, huh ... Only "reality" can be discussed - but reality according to you. And it is to talk about who can/will advance those ideas at the level of government - nothing more, nothing less. You yourself have said elections are a good time to talk about "socialism" - So is that all we can talk about?
So "mention" your candidate or not, it's all the same to me - but don't then go on and on about how elections don't do anything, as if they couldn't if we took them seriously.
And this idea about me attacking the messenger, instead of responding to the message - baloney! I have consistently responded to your "message" - and one way to do that is to point out the inconsistency of the argument - as i do here.
TA, out of curiosity, are you working to get your candidate on the ballot? If not, what's the point of even "mentioning" him? And if so, then you are involved in, and spending your time on, participating in "the system" you claim to have no use for ..
Make up your mind, man - but i am so tired of your denigrating efforts to advance a cause through electoral politics when you are obviously doing the same thing yourself - your credibility on that score is a bit suspect, to say the least ..... And whenever you do so, yes, i will respond ... Your denigration of the process only advances the interests of TPTB and i will continue to point that out. That tactic is engaged in by far too many and is one of the reasons, IMO, we have been stuck with the duopoly for far too long ...
Claiming I am "baiting, taunting, and misleading" hardly makes it so - let us leave that for anyone reading this to decide ...
Who, precisely, is misleading whom ....
Correct. I do not care if you vote for "my" candidate. I have no candidate. Thinking of some politician as "my candidate" is adolescent and self-indulgent. It is a very small percentage of the population that strongly personally identifies with a team in the partisan electoral game, as you do, and change does not come from people's individual personal electoral choices in any case.
I don't care if the Socialist party "gets it act together" as a bourgeois organization and electoral "choice."
I don't think that politics is about our personal choices. You do. So be it.
I will continue to make the point I have been making about partisan electoral politics whether you are tired of it or not. I know that bothers you, but I can't do anything about that.
Ah, you have no candidate. Your party does, but you don't - OK, so i assume you are not claiming your party's candidate is the best one.
"It is a very small percentage of the population that strongly personally identifies with a team in the partisan electoral game, as you do ......"
Ha, ha, ha - another joke! TA, I didn't know you had a sense of humor! It is because too many folks have identified with their "team" and failed to look behind the curtain with the team logo on it, that we have such a bunch of schmucks on office. "Hey, he may be a schmuck, but at least he's OUR schmuck!"
This is especially funny, because it appears that it is you who are a member of a party, whereas I am not! I am an indy - i think carefully about issues then look at all my choices and choose the folks that i want to represent me ....
"change does not come from people's individual personal electoral choices in any case. "
Ah, maybe that has been true for awhile, but it doesn't have to be .....
"I don't care if the Socialist party "gets it act together" as a bourgeois organization and electoral "choice.""
Hmm, so why have a Party at all? Why not be just a bunch of Socialists? Or a herd of Socialists, or a gaggle of Socialists, or a Socialist not for profit (ha, ha - now that's a perfect fit, ain't it?) Why a Party?
"I don't think that politics is about our personal choices. "
How silly, of course it is ... You "chose" to be a Socialist, didn't you? or did someone put a gun to your head? You chose to join a party. You choose to engage in your, as opposed to another, brand of politics, or in politics at all. All of those are personal choices, TA...
Yes, you continue to make the point - and i will continue to refute it. I know that bothers you as well -
I don't "have" a party. Socialism is an approach to understanding social, economic and political reality. I am not a member of any party.
I didn't "choose" to "be" a Socialist any more than you chose between being a Darwinist or being a Creationist. Evolution is not an alternative belief system to Creationism. Nor is Socialism an alternative belief system to anything.
The vast majority of everyday people, when asked, say they don't think much of any of the parties. So, yes, it is a small percentage of the population who takes party identification very seriously.
There are organizations other than partisan electoral political parties. Just because the Abolitionists did not form a partisan electoral political party does not mean that they were "just a bunch of Abolitionists. Or a herd of Abolitionists, or a gaggle."
OK, so you are not a member of a party - and you are not advancing any party's agenda, in spite of the fact that you posted a candidate and platform ....
Really - so you are NOT a socialist - but you have chosen socialism as your "approach", yes? Or you didn't CHOOSE it - it was revealed to you from on high? Struck by lightening, and fell off your horse? Or YOU didn't choose it, someone else chose it for you?
"any more than you chose between being a Darwinist or being a Creationist."
Well of course one chooses those things - based on one's world view, which, like it or not, TA, includes a lot of "beliefs" scattered here and there ...
Hmm, so socialism is not an alternative belief system to anything, including capitalism? So if it isn't a belief system - then you don't believe in it? Oh, that's right "belief" has nothing to do with it, you just "know" it (getting back to the horse and lightening and all ...)
OK, so what is the name or your "organization"? It is obviously not one that is running the candidate you mention, because that would be a party, and you are not a party member ....
Rocky Anderson analyzes several models, one of which is a single payer system. http://bit.ly/y5Gdzs. He prefers single payer, but notes that not all countries that are light-years ahead of ours have pure single payer.
My own thought is that we can get a single payer system going pretty fast by just changing the term "65" (as in 65 years of age) to a lower number, or zero, in the Medicare legislation. Then let people choose between that and Affordable Health Care. That ought to take care of it.
For Medicare for All to work it has to encompass the entire risk pool--the entire population; it has to be funded by taxation rather than premiums, and it has to include the young and healthy as well as the old and poor. Giving people a choice would result in the following: the private insurers would try to undermine the public plan by aggressively marketing the young and healthy; saddled with the old and poor, the public plan would be financially unsustainable.
teddieballgame, isn't that what we already have (except that the young have no choice)? If the young paid what the elderly pay who are on Medicare, wouldn't that be a plus for Medicare due to the fact that the young would use Medicare much less often?
P.S. Anderson's position is different from what I suggested, and is stated in the cite I gave:
"We should adopt a health care system like Taiwan’s single-payer system (the most efficient in the world)[16] or France’s multi-payer system (#1 in the world, according to the World Health Organization)[17]. [Citations omitted here]
"The United States should no longer be the only country in the developed world that has a grossly unequal health care system – a system that condemns millions of people to unnecessary illness and death solely because they don’t have enough money. The provision of essential health care, including preventive care, should never be dependent on how much money a person has. This is not simply a political issue; it is fundamantally a moral issue."
I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're saying we "already have" a universal, compulsory medicare for all that enrolls everyone from birth and is financed by equitable taxation rather than extortionate premiums and deductibles--that is, something on the Canadian model--then no, we don't have anything like that. And offering a half-baked "public option," which is what you seem to be proposing, is unworkable because of the adverse-selection problems I already mentioned above.
teddieballgame -- I’m saying that Medicare could cover all ages. If that were done, and if people were given the choice of enrolling in the ACA or the expanded (to all ages) Medicare, I’ll bet the vast majority would choose Medicare. Why not? After all, ACA isn't supposed to supplant the current Medicare program (right?); the current enrollees (myself included) would be outraged if that happened.