Obama-care Won’t Work: So Why Does He Keep Maligning Universal Care?

The Washington Post has a sample of an ad Obama in running in Pennsylvania in an attempt to make people afraid of universal health insurance.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/

Two problems with it. First, it accuses Hillary of forcing people to buy health insurance whether they can “afford” it or not. There are actually two problems with this first problem. One, here is what Clinton actually said

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4235448



Social Security is a tax that all workers pay, so that if they become disabled or are killed, their family members can draw out of the fund. People do not get a choice of opting in or out. Nor are they allowed to opt in or out of Medicare and Social Security retirement. The federal government enacted those programs to take care of the problem of people who could not or would not plan for disability or retirement. The government also makes decisions for people when they are drunk and disorderly on the highway or suicidal---i.e. a danger to themselves.

There is no reason that the nation’s public health during the prime of its adult life should be any different. Right now we make hospital ER’s take them in so that they do not die on the streets. But what happens when they do not die? What happens when they need surgery and chemotherapy?

The second problem with the first problem is that it is the president’s job to make sure that every American can afford health insurance. Or, to put it a different way, America can no longer afford the uninsured.

http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=1630

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/The-Cost-of-Care-for-the-Uninsured-What-Do-We-Spend-Who-Pays-and-What-Would-Full-Coverage-Add-to-Medical-Spending.pdf

The first document is a brief summary of statistics. The second is a more in depth discussion of the economics of having some citizens uninsured put together by the Kaiser Foundation. Note that Kaiser estimates that it would cost about $48 billion a year to insure the uninsured, but that the economic cost due to lost wages, decreased productivity etc. is at least twice that. Also note that 26% of all medical care in the U.S. is paid for out of pocket by people with no health insurance---that is $32.6 billion/year. Keep in mind, the Kaiser plan calls for enrolling people into Medicaid. This is different from the candidates’ plans to enroll them in for profit insurance plans, which will be more costly but will keep United Health and Aetna from staging a government coup. ( I think their right to taxpayer funded welfare is written in invisible ink somewhere on the back of the Constitution.)

So, basically, we are spending a minimum of $120 billion a year in out of pocket for piss poor health out comes (since the documents show that uninsured seek health care later and tend to get poorer results) and in lost economic productivity when we could be spending $48 billion for universal health coverage which would give everyone access to preventive care and keep our workforce healthy, cut down on disability and all the economic and family hardship which that causes. This would also reduce the $40 billion in uncompensated hospital care which is now paid out of federal, state or local funds. Since there would be better prevention and since people would have access to physicians, fewer would use the ER as a primary care doctor, so these expenses would go down and what remained would be covered by insurance, causing further savings of tax moneys.

If you add in the long term savings to Medicare (a $260 billion/year insurance program) made possible by universal preventive health care for all citizens designed to help them reach the age of 65 as fit as possible, you can see thatuniversal health insurance actually saves money. There is a reason that the rest of the industrialized world pays less than half per person per year for health care that gives better results than we get in the U.S. It covers everyone all the time.

The second problem Obama claims that by getting insurers to offer some sort of plan to everyone and by offering some sort of government assistance (his add says specifically $2500), everyone in the U.S. who does not have health insurance will go down to Health Insurers R Us and sign up for Obama Care. Obama is wrong.

Here is another Kaiser Foundation document, one that studies trends among the nation’ uninsured.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7737.pdf

As we might all guess, the more money you make, the more likely you are to purchase individual health insurance for yourself and your family. That makes sense. Also, if you have children, you are more likely to buy it. And, if you are self employed, meaning that you can write off the premiums, you are also more likely to go out and purchase insurance.

Now, for the unexpected, scary part, the part that Obama and his people should have paid attention to when they were writing up their health care policy. Even those people who make over 1000% of the poverty level and who can write off their insurance premiums—of that group only 58% bother with health insurance. If they can not write off the premiums and they make over 1000% of the poverty level that number goes down to 49%.

There are many possible reasons for this observed finding. Some people may have had pre-existing conditions. Some did not “care” about their health. And for some, though insurance might seem affordable to an outsider, the cost of premiums, which can rise up to $10,000/year for a family with parents in the 50s or with members with diseases, might be staggering, even if the family is middle class. (Remember, Obama’s $2500/year covers the premiums for the ideal cherry picked healthy young insured).

Here is a document that goes into more detail about the many reasons that people do not get insurance:

http://statecoverage.net/coverage/why.htm

Pay close attention to this one. A lot of people who do not really understand poverty or what it means to live paycheck to paycheck do not grasp this one:



If you are truly low income, what seems like a “pittance” to a policy wonk who is not really familiar with poverty---say a $100-200/month premium payment for your insurance---may be way beyond the family’s budget. And this is for people with employer sponsored insurance that would pick up 75% of the cost (although as I have written before, the employee really pays for it in reduced wages and benefits). This same worker would almost certainly opt out of Social Security if given a chance, too.

Here is another problem. Many Americans are lazy.



Social Security was designed to address this problem. People did not have to do anything. It was done automatically. Universal health insurance, if it is going to work, needs to be automatic, too, or as close to automatic as the government can make it.

Now, why would anyone offer a universal health care system that is designed to fail? Well, for one thing we know that the Medical Industrial Complex (MIC)----all the pharmaceutical companies and hospitals and durable medical goods manufacturers and makers of MRIs and other medical machinery in this country make insane amounts of money off the nation’s elderly from our Medicare system. Since people get piss poor or no health care in their youth with no prevention, and since they are encouraged to smoke, eat and sit around during their youth developing bad hearts, lungs, joints, kidneys, eyes, by the time they reach the age of retirement, they are ready for the MIC to harvest. There are a bunch of medications, surgeries, treatments, hospitalizations that can be applied to each senior citizen in the United States---all at the expense of the U.S. government.

But universal health insurance as a first step to comprehensive universal health care with investment in a national program of health and disease prevention that targets people when they are young---the kind of initiatives that they have in Japan and other industrialized countries which make their life expectancy longer than ours---that would cut into the profits of the MIC.

So, the Obama Let’s pretend like we are going to insure everyone but don’t and then blame the people when it doesn’t work plan is really really good for the MIC, and it does not hurt the health insurance industry, either, so he should not expect much opposition from either of them as he campaigns for president.

Which seems to be the raison d’etre behind many of his policies. Do not rock the boat.

it became obvious that health care was not going to be an area where the executive branch would lead.

But that is ok. Because neither of them is nuts enough to veto the real deal when the Dem congress sends it to them. I think that we should settle for no less than CheneyCare.

and whatever is passed will be negligable. And the same would have been true for Edwards.

FDR got Social Security done. LBJ got Medicare done--and let me tell you that there was a hell of a lot more opposition to Medicare then than there is right now to universal health care. Medicare was a Commie plot. Universal health care is just a tax increase.

If there is a Democratic president who really wants it done and a Democratic Congress whose arm can be twisted it will be done.

For a well known Obama supporter on these boards to say No, we can't to universal health care really makes a mockery of everything that her candidate is supposed to stand for.

I have a good friend who's both an MD and an attorney who heads up a group advocating for single payer health care coverage. She was a strong Edwards supporter. She's pretty convinced, from her experience and knowledge, that getting meaningful healthcare reform passed is unlikely. And let me point out, that the power of industry is much greater now than it was it even 40 years ago. And how the hell do you know that there was greater opposition to Medicare than to providing accessible healthcare to all Americans. You hardly posted anything persuasive in the way of evidence. In fact, you posted no evidence at all.

ready for meaningful health care reform. we are now. its a priority right up there with Iraq.

...not ready now.

Democrats have been trying to get politicians elected to high office with this issue since 1948. Truman was the first.

How do you get universal care for three hundred million people, when we can't afford the entitlements that are already on the books?

It won't happen. That's why the media have quit talking about it. That's why the candidates are staying away from it.

Other than an un-credited assertion from a nameless auctor.

I worked in Emergency Medicine and Ortho Surg for 12 years.
I feel somewhat informed.

Your assertion is quite breathtaking, but in a bad way. The power of industry? After the Bear Stearns, Enron, Halliburton years of baby bush, I think the apotheosis of big biz will have to be postponed for a while.

HRC cannot win, because of the groundwork done by the Arkansas Project and all of right wing radio for a decade and a half, after her vote for IWR and the association of the Clinton name with the debacle that is NAFTA. Her negs are higher than her positives. That is generally considered a bad thing.

Neither of the current candidates have what I consider a workable health care policy. So congress will lead, or well, the Dem majority will last a single cycle. That is what a crisis looks like. And we are on the horns of several crises as I write this.

We are going to get one shot to fix what is wrong. If we can't, I suspect 2009 will look a lot like 1968.

Here is a good read on the long battle to get Medicare added to Social Security. It dates back to Truman who wanted it but could not get it. The Republicans under Eisenhower refused to consider it--just as the Bush administration has. Note that it is another thing that the young and inexperienced JFK could not do but that the determined and more experienced LBJ accomplished.



http://www.larrydewitt.net/Essays/MedicareDaddy.htm



The nation needs that kind of mendacity working on health care.

One difference between then and now is that America's doctors were united in opposition to Medicare. The AMA was formed to fight Medicare. This was before health care was so expensive that the average middle class family could not pay for treatments out of pocket. There were no good remedy's for many illnesses unless there was a surgical cure i.e cut it off. So insurance was not that much of an issue. Doctors in the US feared becoming public servants and losing their status as "professionals"--like clergymen and lawyers.

Now, even though the AMA is still on the fence about various forms of universal health insurance, individual physicians and health care providers support it, because they are fed up with dealing with health insurers' paperwork, denials of claims, denials of care and they are also sick of trying to take care of the nearly 50 million people who have no insurance but who still need state of the art health care.

More important than the physicians are the employers. They are sick of having to provide health insurance. Now that the nation's large employers are demanding that the government step in and take over the burden of getting their employees health insurance so that they will be well enough to work, it is inevitable that it will happen. Employers trump the health insurance industry.

"The nation needs that kind of mendacity working on health care. "

If so, then I agree with you. I just don't ever want to see it tied to mandatory payments to for-profit insurance companies. That is where Hillary and I parted ways, so to speak.

Illinois' SCHIP program.

Clinton's health care reform debacle of the 90s. Yeah, who are you going to trust more to ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY???

SCHIP is currently improving the lives of hundreds of Illinois children - literally. Non-Profits that help the poor LOOVE this program! It really takes a burden off of them.

I'm not saying that Clinton has bad intentions. She obviously really cares about health care reform, but if she tackles the opponents to her plan the way that she is tackling her opponents now, we're going to have a problem on our hands.

they are written. This is a non-issue, really. Candidates have to put something forward that they would "like" to do. And I certainly believe health care reform WILL happen. But whatever the end product is, it will probably not look much like what either candidate has offered up.

Just the facts.

Personally, I like Kucinich's plan the best.

And the only reason it passed in 1965 is because Democrats won enormous majorities in congress in the '64 elections.

Given the congress that LBJ had to work with after 1964, universal health care would be quite possible. Unfortunately the congress we will get after 2008 will probably look a lot like the one we had before 1964.

I expect that we will have a solid Dem majority in Congress. As long as the Democratic Party unites behind its presidential candidate.

But I'd love it if we got them.

It only "can't be done" if the person in office doesn't want it to be done.

and no, I'm not counting on Congress to send a good health care reform bill to the WH. It will take presidential leadership to whip Congress into shape and get the job done.

As I understand it, HRC's plan is administered by the same entities that have done such a bang up job since the eighties.

Insurance companies.

To me, that looks like more welfare for the rich.
Like I said. I want the same healthcare Cheney gets, at the same price.

Clinton's plan, like Edwards, offers individuals and employers a choice between buying from a regulated pool of private insurers or from a public plan similar to Medicare.

If people don't want to buy from private insurance companies, they can choose the public plan.

It benefits you most to know the facts about each candidate's plan.

This is funny since Obama does the same thing...

I'd be supporting Edwards.

and while everyone will have a seat at the table, he isn't going
to let the lobbyist buy a chair.

Hillary could have the best policy in the world, which she flat
out doesn't, she has an insurance policy not Universal Health Care -

but she isn't capable of getting a policy enacted.

She is a divisive person who has already burned the progressive bridges
and any trust it would take to get them to believe she can do anything.

It would take we- the people to be highly involved and loud in order
to help our next president get us Universal Health Care.

Neither candidate is proposing UHC.

How we get there depends on whether we have a real leader or if
we have another political hack in power.

Yep. That'll get us universal health care. :crazy:

Which is the whole point.

Forget about Obama or Clinton or Edwards giving us healthcare. That is 100 percent congress. You HAVE to focus on congress or they WILL be lobbyied to hell and back and you get a bill with like billions of tax cuts for the rich or something.


Clinton tried and failed when keeping it public could have saved it. The public way is the better way.

He managed to drive the real anti-lobby, anti-corporate candidates, Edwards and Dennis, from the race and steal their base while amassing a fortune in contributions through this fiction that he takes no corporate or lobby money.

It is a lie. He takes money from AT&T and everyone else that has a lobbying interest in DC. It is just that he won't take it from the DC offices. You have to send the $$$ through one of your state offices and then send it to the Obama campaign. That is the only difference between Clinton the Corporate Candidate and Obama the Corporate Candidate.

The people here who think that he has funded his campaign from individual donors have been lied to. There is no way to amass that kind of money without getting it from special interests. He is just like Bill Clinton. He plays legalistic tricks with words. No "DC lobbyists" and then claims that only a DC lobbyists cares about federal legislation as if Verizon can not funnel funds through Sacramento.

very first time I've heard it. You'd think HRC would ram it down O's throat everytime he claimed to be refusing lobbyist's money.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp

Clinton $$865,290

Obama $115,163

oh wait...

disclaimer: i know mccamy is saying that obama has people who work for lobbyists who work for them donating money to his campaign (or some bs like that) and is thusly taking lobbyists money "indirectly," er, "laundering" it. it's supposedly legit, and not laundering. whatever it is- GOD i wish I could find the link (my bookmarks got disappeared yesterday :grr: ) and when I do I will post it- this is more or less this is a last ditch desperate effort to insinuate that obama is a liar.

If you click on the candidate links on the page completely different and contradictory numbers for contributions are displayed. Of course, one page is as of March 20th and the other is February 29th. One problem is the second layer page with the source of contributions doesn't add up, for example PACs contributed $250 to Obama but the breakout of PAC contribution is $13,137. This makes me dizzy.

You have seen this a gazillion times before in DU. I know that I have.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/obamas-lobbyist-fib_b_95399.html

"Obama's Lobbyist Fib" by Craig Crawford

There are more if you bother to Google this yourself.

The fact that he took money from lobbyists for previous elections is a moot point. I like the 'facts' for his taking money from lobbyists in the presidential campaign, "The Los Angeles Times said...". Now that is a real bona fide source.
I am not an Obama supporter, but only a Hillary supporter could base an argument on this.

Hearings for crissake. Get on with the damn job.

Neither will Hillary's

You cannot compare them in any meaningful way because neither has gone through the meat grinder that is Congress.

Hillary failed at this once. She claims to be smarter on it now, but I dunno.

I say get John Edwards on board as Health Care Czar and let him kick the shit out of congress full time until they come up with something worthwhile along the lines of his single payer system.

He should be on television every week to tell the voters who's on board and who's playing games.

Just dreaming.

:patriot:

Sometimes the brain farts the other way....

I guess I'm parsing things a bit here, but she couldn't get
it passed in her "second mandate".

Whereas Clinton resists the R/W talking points and continues to support her own.

That tells us all we need to know about which candidate will fight for quality health care reform if elected.

Or on any area where competence and tenacity are needed.

In this case I'd be hoping against hope for a Congressional committee to move the president's proposal way over to the left, whereas usually things get compromised more to the middle. There's not much room for this one to go further to the middle and actually make any strides toward single-payer.

insurance is not UHC.

Taiwan DID switch to UHC in 1995, and they did it by examining what
other countries did, and selecting what they liked from those.

They spend half of what we do on health care in the US, and
their people are better served.

as I say in the OP for people who read it. I think that most people posting here have not read the OP.

but don't the insurance companies give HRC quite a bit of money?

I for one am not interested in having anymore money taken out of my pay check, even though it's not much since I'm a waitress, but my husband has an hourly job, and with the price of everything else going up, we can't afford losing any more money. As it is now, we're behind on everything and our health insurance is Mainecare with a co-pay.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H03

Health Services/HMO's
Hillary Clinton $436,571

Barack Obama $304,299

i haven't ecven had my coffee yet.

but either way, i'm with you. our budget would not allow for it. UHI (mandated insurance) is far from UHC, and is NOT the "step closer" that we need- all this is going to do is make it look undesirable to people who don't know about it and prove people who are already opposed to it supposedly right.

my sister-in-law is a nurse, and we never talk politics, but she keeps saying over and over- and i just want to die every time she says it, but instead politely change the subject since as a nurse and one with a nurse friend in canada who hates it, she obviously knows everything there is to know about the subject- that "both candidates want to socialize health care, so i don't want either of 'em." she then cites canada's infamous nurse to patient ratios, and nurse pay, and long waits to get care, etc.

that said, again, though, i don't think it would be fair to criticize either C or O on this topic at this point. for me, the hang nail is trust, and whether or not i trust either to actually go forward with it. hm...i know which one i don't trust.

You'll have choices and alternatives you can afford.

but its too late to correct that now

I believe there is a deliberate attempt to install UHC to coverup it's current reference to University Healthsystems Consortium, or the Group Puchasing Organization monopoly that congress was going to reform....

http://www.medicaldevices.org/public/issues/gpo.asp

Dennis Kucinich was the man to elect to move to single payer really.

That is the difference. We would have a nation of laborers and people who worked minimum wage jobs reach 65 without any Medicare or SS because they would never have had an extra cent in their lives that they could have "afforded" to invested for the future. And then there would be the people who just forgot to sign up or who could not be bothered. Read the OP. The folks at Kaiser do a fine job.

Hillary Care = Romny Care.

There is a 6 month waiting period for pre-existing conditions.

Insurance Companies still set the price.

You MUST pay.

Arbitrary guidelines decide what you will pay.

I like the clarity. That is why I am leery of Hillarycare.

or something like that.

Maybe, come to think of it, it will just give Ford a lot of money they haven't earned.

The only way her plan could be compared with SS is if it were single payer, non-profit, and government administered.

as is "Sicko" if we want to see how it works in other countries. The US is the laughing stock of other countries whose health care systems work well for their citizens. I didn't see the whole program but here's a link to Frontline's website.
How I wish we could just do what Taiwan did!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

from Frontline's website comes this example from the UK. Taiwan, Germany, Switzerland's plans are spelled out at the link. Can't we learn ANYTHING from these countries?????

UNITED KINGDOM

Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3

Average family premium: None; funded by taxation.

Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays.

What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients.

How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader.

What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited
choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

Hell, I think I'll move to the UK!

last summer, I had the misfortune of catching an intestinal parasite in Mexico (go figure). Once I realized it was not, in fact, the water, my host family knew they had to do something. I had international health insurance, but I really didn't want to go to an American hospital and pay god-knows-what. So, my host mom took me to her gastroenterologist. No ridiculous paperwork, no waiting for hours in an exam room: I was in and out in less than an hour. The visit cost me $300 (pesos-about $28 USD at the time). He gave me a scrip for two prescriptions, which cost $100 pesos (and I didn't even need the prescription). When, after a week or so I still felt a little weird, I went back to the pharmacy, got more Cipro and eventually felt better. No fuss, no muss.

On the other hand...I have had dizzy spells since fucking September. I've been to three different doctors. MRIs, tests...I have shit insurance because I'm a grad student and I can't afford the co-pays and payments after the coverage. It's such bullshit. Mexico has better healthcare in many ways...how nuts is that?!?

it sounds like you didn't get rid of the parasites. They can cause nausea, dizziness, fatigue, etc. I've had parasites before and a very simple thing to do is to go to your local health food store, buy some Solaray "Black Walnut" herb, take a couple of capsules in the am on an empty stomach for about a week or 2 and voila, they are gone. It costs about 9 bucks most places.

For tougher, more tropical parasites, you might want to try Paragone which is a stronger regimen that cleanses the body of parasites, candida and lots of other baddies. You can find out more at the link and it is available at most health food stores and costs around 25 bucks. All of these products are natural and about the only side effect you might get from Paragone is a laxative effect.
Email me if you have other questions. I worked in a health food store for years so I'm really into these healing herbs.

Yea, many friends go to Mexico for dental work, meds, etc. Cheap, good, clean and I'm about to go there to get work done myself. I figure my teeth would do me in before anything else what with high costs therein.

:shrug:

they are overused and are put in spots where their emphasis does not help get your point across

and all of those mean old bolds will go away, and then they will not hurt your sensitive eyes anymore. And then you can comment on the substance of the OP.

I am one that believes we are. We will never get it until we rise up and elect NO ONE but those that will enact it.

The insurance companies have GOT TO GO. I'm sorry.

Tied to, but not to be confused with, University of Chicago Hospitals.

Non-profit care, or the concept of caring for each other as a public right, is something completely different.

And that was very early in his campaign.

I simply do not understand how someone who, in principle, is for single payer care.... can make this kind of leap away from having all people covered.

Like the one Dennis Kucinich had. All a mandate does is make folks go out and buy insurance what is to stop that happening now. Oh yeah folks are broke.

So... how does one go from supporting such a system to not even wanting everyone included?

Kucinich and Conyers know the deal...

Let's get HR 676 back!

...insurance. Genuine universal care has nor money making just care.

1. "No one offers universal health care"----I talk about universal health insurance in the OP and the Kaiser studies discuss health insurance. The title refers to health care as an ultimate goal.

2. "Congress will probably wimp out and not pass any health care"--a variation of the second favorite Republican excuse "They all do it" which they use to excuse their own bad behavior

3. Hillary could not pass it in 1992 which is irrelevant because people and doctors and esp. employers want it much more now than they did then

Before posting them repeatedly, please refer to the list and see if they have already been covered.

single payer"

Universal health care won't be free either. Somehow these programs have to be funded and its only fair that everyone contribute to the system based on their ability to pay.

But why is it that all other modern industrial societies (as opposed to 3rd world sweatshops with a flag) have universal healthcare and we do not?

Ah yes, taxes.
I think we are headed back to a top tax rate over 50% for the uber rich.
That, and a bit of trade protectionism to get our economy back working ought to be a start.

We are currently 37th in the world.

But keep in mind, not all modern countries have single payer universal.

Bottom line, we have to find a way to pay for it and everyone has to contribute based on ability.

1. Raise the tax rate for the over one mil a year income crowd to ~60% of income, both earned and dividend.

2. Withdraw from all trade agreements. Start setting tariffs again.

3. Cut our military world footprint by 80% Cut our military budget to 20% of current levels. Scrap 500 ships of the six hundred ship navy. Give the steel back to American manufacturers at fire sale prices.

The savings from these three measures ought to go a long way.

There have been quite a few studies done by Dem candidates, as well as health care advocacy organizations like the Commonwealth Fund and Kaiser Family Foundation that incorporate strategies for both cutting health care costs and raising revenue needed to provide universal care.

Improving quality of care, lowering prescription costs, more preventive care, etc. are all ways to get the job done. It will take a long time, as long as a decade, but eventually providing a universal system of health coverage can pay for itself.

:applause:

I see no way it will work. Basically, it just fattens the insurance companies bank accounts. In addition to the large amount of money they require from you to be covered, insurance companies can exercise the option of refusing to pay for anything they don't want to pay for. My understanding that their list of things they won't pay for is growing which puts the patient in double jeopardy of paying large amounts of money to be covered and either paying for the medicine or procedure that they need out of their own pocket or not getting the medicine or treatment at all.

In addition, if they do pass some form of mandated health insurance they will then use it as an excuse to refuse to pass national health care and in the end nothing will be done, nothing will change.

Do not rock the boat is an excellent description of Obama, by the way.

Inevitably, what is going to happen is that the federal government is going to look at the $$$ it shells out in subsidies to poor families to help them buy insurance and it will look at its deficit and it will say "How do we we cut our costs?" And I don't care how much money the health insurance industry dumps on DC, if there is enough profit being made by those insurance companies that trimming it could save the federal budget say $10 billion a year---$10 billion that the Senators could send home in highway and corn subsidies to help themselves get elected---then Health and Human Services is going to be directed to trim the health insurance industry's profit margin. That is how Medicare works right now. They are ruthless at cutting reimbursements. The Bush administration cut a deal with the drug companies but the next Democratic administration will undo that to save money for some other Democratic project.

Eventually, the private insurers will get squeezed out altogether and everyone will get sucked into Medicare. This will happen over the course of 5-10 years as private health insurers write policies and then say "We are not making enough money, We need higher premiums!" and to their horror the federal government will say "Medicare is able to operate within these costs. Why can't you?"

Health insurance is part of the B Ark from Hitchhikers Guide. Everyone knows it. Their days are numbered. When it comes down to building a new bomber that will make jobs in Washington State or sending tax money to UnitedHealth for profit, United Health will be SOL.

Another reason the health insurance industry prefers a universal insurance plan that will fail. Because if people do not sign up then the feds are not spending money on it and they will not step in to control costs.

Clinton's plan gives individuals and employers a choice between buying insurance from heavily regulated private insurance pools and a public plan similar to Medicare.

If you don't want to buy private insurance you don't have to. Buy it from the public plan.

it`s the same old shit in a different package.

dennis had the plan and the method to introduce universal single pay healthcare in the usa but no one listened.

on the backs of the poor and sick.

they don't have to buy private insurance.

If you don't want private health insurance, buy it from the public plan. It will probably be cheaper anyway.

Not being fully informed on this issue hurts you more than anyone.

i am fully informed on health care issues since i have been dealing with these issues for the last 6 years.

Harry and Louise backing Hillary
Health-care sector, once a critic of then-first lady's plans for reforms, now lavishing contributions on senator.
July 12 2006: 10:41 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The health-care industry, once a fierce critic of then-first lady Hillary Clinton's reform plans for the sector, is now lavishing campaign contributions on the U.S. senator ahead of her expected presidential bid.

According to Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finance filings, Clinton has received $781,112 in contributions from the health-care sector during the current election cycle, which makes her the No. 2 recipient of funds from that sector, behind only Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who received $977,354.

Clinton, the only Democrat to be in the top five in total donations from the sector, is also the No. 1 senator in terms of donations from nurses and health professionals, and the No. 2 recipient of donations from employees of hospitals and nursing homes, as well as insurance companies.

The center's Web site shows that the sector is not the top contributor to Clinton. Donations from lawyers, retirees as well as Wall Street, real estate and the entertainment industries have all topped her contributions from health care. She is also the No. 1 recipient from each of those sectors.

Partly because of her expected presidential campaign, Clinton is the top recipient among members of Congress.

The New York Times reports that while there are still some doubts about her in the health-care industry, some in the industry are making contributions in case she is elected president. The newspaper reports that William R. Abrams, the executive vice president of the Medical Society of the State of New York, is one of her fundraisers in the sector, even though he is a Republican.

Frederick H. Graefe, a health-care lawyer and lobbyist in Washington for more than 20 years, told the Times in a report published Wednesday that, "People in many industries, including health care, are contributing to Senator Clinton today because they fully expect she will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.

..............

Don't be fooled! Hillary and Bill are going to go with the Corporate elite! Just like they did with Murdoch and the 1996 Communications Act! I used to stick up for them both but now I have seen the light and it ain't pretty!!!!!!

:argh:

I think Hillary's plan is just to benefit the insurance companies. Obama doesn't have a plan. I don't think the country is going to get behind HR 676 although I wish they would.

My state has a good plan- we just need to elect a majority of Democrats to the Statehouse to get it passed and keep our Centrist governor from interfering.

Obama does have a plan, and just like Hillary's it is as you say, benefiting the Insurance Companies only. He has a plan, it is just a piss poor plan. Saying he doen't have a plan is just false.
The Conyers bill is a good one.

Nobody seems to know what it is.

And I think the Conyers bill is great. But its going to be awfully hard to convince the majorities in both houses to take out the profit motive.

And it is in fact the subject of the OP. Both Obama and Clinton have plans that stink and are unworkable, but the details of each are availbale at the camapign websites. It is something both of them have discussed at length. My point is just that they both have a plan and both plans are rotten. To say she has a rotten plan and he has none is false. He also has a rotten plan. They are equal in rotteness, as they are on most issues. To convince the Congress, we the voters need to stop endorsing candidates who oppose our agenda. But Obama has a plan, vauge and unworkable, but it is a plan. Clinton's is somewhat more workable but still it is rotten and like Obama's focused on keeping profit for Insurance Companies in place while removing from those companies all of the risk.

:shrug:

Our goal should be to get a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president and DEMAND the Kucinich plan be instituted.

and that said, both plans are "in the raw," and i don't think it is at all fair to bemoan clinton or obama on this alone at this point in time.

Congress won't alter it or just chuck it in the circular file.

Universal Health Care is the way to go. However, given the choice between the two Health Insurance Plans being offered, I believe the Obama plan at least offers a bit of dignity for those that WILL NOT be able to afford healh insurance at any price.

If you are observant enough to realize that there are folks out there months behind in rent and utilities, and deciding between food on the table or gas for the car. These folks will not be able to take on another payment any any price, and as we know, failure to purchase under the Clinton plan will be criminal negligence and they will be subject to having their wages garnished.

At least the Obama plan recognizes this reality that there will be many many folks that cannot afford even an additional dollar of debt, and allows them some small measure of DIGNITY by being poor but without the added mental burden of being labeled a criminal as would be the case with the Clinton plan.

The bottom line though is neither is offering a Health Care Plan, only selling us insurance. We need to stand now in support of HR 676 or forever live with the oppressive FOR PROFIT Insurance based system they will likely saddle us with.

To be honest, I am shocked how many progressives seem so willing to go along with this Universal Health Insurance scheme, and even come to places like DU and tout them as if we were finally getting something. Fact is you're getting little and the Insurance industry stands to gain huge windfall profits as a result of these mandates.

If you're a Progressive Dem, get off your ass, write your Congress persons, AND your favored candidate and let them know we the people will accept nothing less than HR 676.

collect returnable cans along the side of the road just to survive. They should see the line at can counting machines in the lobby of our local grocery store.

and at the "CoinStar" cashing in a soup can full of pennies and nickels to buy some more Ramen Noodles for dinner, and the best America can do for these folks is passing mandatory Health Insurance regulations????

Let's get real folks Who the f*#k is something like that really going to help? Trillions for an illegal war, billions more for Corporate Welfare bailouts, and we the people that foot the bill for all those expenditures get thrown a Health Insurance bone???

Get real. Get mad, get active and DEMAND implementation of HR 676.

Having a lack of health care is in no way a source of dignity. Caring for those too poor to afford health care is not expressed by leaving them without, rather by providing it for nothing or close to it, like every other developed country on the face of the Earth.
To try to make one For Profit Only Insuance Salesperson look better than the other by saying your guy would let them go without any care at all is no a good argument. In fact, it is a great reason to go with a Mandated plan. Letting someone suffer and die is not giving them dignity. It is the oppostie of dignity. Those who are actually poor should have it for nothing, not simply have nothing.
Not for Profit is the only way. I agree HR 676 is great. Boosting either candidate while they shill for the insurance industry is not the way to let DC know the people will accept nothing less. Boosting the candidates without reservation is in fact the way to make sure the leadership knows they will get the money and support even if they keep promoting the idea that we should be helping Insurance Cos make money.
The Insuance Co will have no risk, so why should they have profit? Because Obama and Clinton say so? Those boosting these two instead of holding them to the fire are the whole problem. It is why we stay in Iraq, have no health care, a lousy economy and we will never get over it. Cheering for those who oppose everything we stand for is a fool's choice. Support single payer, that means no cheerleading for the Centarist Senators being shoved down our throats. Lousy candidates, lousy policies, both difficult to elect. They have no policy to fight for and many negatives to overcome. This is an election all about egos and not about our nation.

has never said how the plan would cover everyone so speculation about what would happen is just that, speculation.

Of course not. No health care reform plan comes without costs and everyone will need to contribute to paying for health care based on their ability to pay.

I'd like to see Kucinich's plan adopted, too. But we don't have a candidate in this race willing to run on backing it. I'd rather choose the candidate most likely to do that, and it certainly won't be the candidate who uses right wing talking points to malign health care reform.

That should be a clue to Obama supporters who claim to support health care reform. What are the odds of his supporting Medicare for all if he uses right wing talking points against health care reform?

I hope you're not trying to imply that Clinton has the upper hand on RW tactics. She's used her share, more than her share really, of right wing talking points. The MoveOn comments being the most recent example so lets really cut the BS rhetoric and talk Health Care.

HR 676 already has some measure of backing in the House. I don't give a flying F who you are supporting in these primaries, what WE THE VOTERS need to do is push that candidate to back HR 676.

Both the Clinton and Obama plans suck, and neither one will lead to Universal anything. HR 676 is what America needs.

Clinton has not used right wing talking points to undermine Dem efforts for health care reform. Obama has.

to determine whether the candidate uses RW talking points? So, by your logic, the fact that Clinton co-opted a Rove lie in commenting on MoveOn's position with regard to Afghanistan does not count as using RW talking points because she wasn't addressing the issue of her or Obama's Health Insurance plans at the time?

plan that actually covers most expenses.

How are we paying to occupy 800+ military bases around the world?

We stop pretending we are the leader of the world. We aren't, we are just spending that way.

When we can stop the MilIntel juggernaut that can misspend and mislay a trillion bucks, we can afford a whole lot of butter.

Bottom line is no plan for universal health care can succeed without:

Everyone participating

Sharing the burden of the cost, based on ability to pay

hell of a lot more.

That is, we are borrowing money from the rest of the world through treasury bond sales, which our future generation will have to pay back.

paid for my taxes. Our tax rates would go way up just like in other countries. And the rich need to pay the lion's share.

My mother suffered a stroke and is on Medicare. She received both hospitalization AND rehabilitation therapy under Medicare and I for one am quite thankful she has access to it.

then.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/12/12568/1643/766/370457



That is the intro. There is more in the diary.

problem with expanding or using Medicare but they need to make Medicare actually not leave people owing thousands of dollars as it does now. Part D alone is a joke! My meds cost over a grand a month, where in god's name would I be without secondary insurance?

Just this week I got a EOB from Medicare which is typical. The bill was 112. Medicare allowed 12 bucks and paid 12. They disallowed like 90. The reason? "Not covered for the diagnosis". (It was CA125 cancer testing, I have cancer for god's sake.

After I spent about an hour on the frustrating phone I asked what diagnosis did they put? (Thinking an error was made) and was promptly told they didn't (and wouldn't) give out that info. So I said I'd call Mayo clinic and get them to refile and they say "oh no, you CAN'T refile once it's been filed, but you can appeal).

Snort. And this happens A LOT. If I hadn't met my deductible, only 12 bucks would've gone to it.

The hospital deductible is like 900 bucks now, and everything else goes on Part B for this kind of nonsense.

No, Medicare needs a complete overhaul or dropped completely and a REAL PLAN put into place.

Hillary talks about "tax subsidies" to help people pay for insurance, what nonsense!! Poor to middle income people will have to pay for insurance they can't afford and then have deductibles and copays they can't afford.

Really? Have you ever had a mom drawing an eight hundred dollar social security check try to pay the medicare non covereds and deductibles not to mention drugs? Pleased?

BOTH PLANS SUCK.

HR 676 is the way to go, and I will still be demanding it regardless of who ends up in the WH.

by his own admission he is "almost there".

I think if the voting public allows ANY candidate to pawn off a Health INSURANCE scheme on us when we KNOW there is a better and truly universal approach already drafted, sitting in Congress, and WITH a good measure of backing already....then it's the voting public who are really fools.

Social security is a government-administered program.

If health becomes a government-administered program, I will wholehearted support a payroll deduction to pay for it. Until then, NO WAY. We can reduce middle-man costs by having the government administrate the program. Anytime profit is the goal, quality suffers. Look at the airlines.

Single-payer for me, thanks.

that was striving for Universal Health Care. Though I would like to see Obama lay off of Hillary's health care plan - I think it's counter productive.

If we were starting from scratch (meaning if the Insurance Companies were not already so powerful), then HR 676 would be the way to go.

Well, we the voters need to send Obama and Washington a message that as far as we are concerned we ARE starting from scratch. Demand that HR 676 be considered and openly debated in Congress along with the Obama and Clinton insurance plans. I wish for once the voters would get really fired up and demand something beneficial for the good of the people.

Corporations have no problem going to Capitol Hill and making huge demands for billions of dollars of tax payer money, so why should we the taxpayers be so reluctant to demand something for ourselves?

Hillary and Barak can jab back and forth about the "merits" of their Health Insurance plans, but we all know that quite frankly they are doing nothing more than playing ping-pong with a turd, and we're getting shitty in the process. I see no benefit to maintaining a for-profit insurance middleman between you and your doctor. How do you "cut expenses" when by design you have an added profit maker in the mix? We're being buffaloed. I know it and y'all know it too. Demand accountability, demand HR 676.

Pretty despicable. I keep trying to find reasons to like him, but can't.

and set us back over a decade.

Now, here we are, at a point where we need a President who isn't
using republican tactics and who isn't playing Zell Miller.

because they were afraid that if the Dems enacted health care reform it would help the Democratic Party. I think that the Dems should use this as a campaign slogan this fall against the Republicans. They cared more about their political power than about the nation's health.

Read the article about Medicare above. JFK could not pass Medicare legislation. Does that mean that JFK "sabotaged" Medicare? Maybe if he had come back ten years later, older and wiser he could have passed it. LBJ could not pass it the first time, but he did the second time. Determination pays off.

This is going to take someone who is not afraid of criticism, someone who does not care what the polls say. Read about how LBJ personally spoke to people on Capitol Hill every day about Medicare. He did not shrug it off to his assistants. He made it his own job to see it done.

In 1992-3, Hillary was the First Lady. In 2009, she will be the president. If she says "Vote for my health care, and then maybe we will talk about your x, y and z" you can bet that people are going to listen more closely than they did back then.

every chance he gets? Why does he repeat GOP talking points about Social Security? Why is he so dedicated to smearing the only successful Democratic presidency since JFK?

These are all interesting questions that no one is asking, and they lead to a very disturbing conclusion.

It's a continuation of "don't rock the boat". The only thing that's really going to work for the American people is universal healthcare coverage for everyone without insurance company involvement.

sick.

The man behind many of Bill's economic policies.

For another, your disdain for your fellow Americans is palpable.

Finally, stop insulting everyone's intelligence by claiming that mandatory private insurance is "universal health care". It's a boondoggle to a greedy industry, forcing people to buy their lousy product. When they force all those lazy deadbeats with buckets of extra cash that you are so convinced are to blame for the high cost of health care, and your health care costs don't go down and the service you get doesn't improve, whom will you blame next, McCamy?

How about the Commonwealth Fund? Are they backed by private insurance too?

There is nothing about the Kaiser family foundation that would lead me to that conclusion.

http://www.kff.org/about/trustees2.cfm

... unless I was interested in throwing out shit just to obfuscate my candidate's lack of leadership on the issue at hand.

Like a tax.

Like single-payer.

It's a step toward that, at least.

Tell me something Sparkly, do you believe in partial privatization of SS, or school vouchers? Why do you think the RW is constantly pushing these things?

If not, then why do you believe that a semi-private mandated health insurance system would lead to anything but MORE privatization?

And again, who decides my "ability to pay"? You? Hillary?

STOP comparing this mandated boondoggle to Social Security. They are NOT the same!!

*Edit to correct spelling.

Why should I believe a word she says about health care?

She already had her chance to do health care, but she chose to do it in smoke-filled rooms and stepped on a bunch of toes, and as a result, she's had a big part in inflicting a Republican majority on us for more than a decade.

Obama actually knows how to reach out to people and come up with a solution that works for everyone.

Were you around then?

And yes, I do remember the hearings.

Of course, a lot of it was also screeching from the insurance companies (and their millions in lobbying money) but if Hillary was more inclusive, and willing to listen, maybe she could have overcome the insurance shills, and we wouldn't be worried about being denied chemotherapy if we get cancer.

That's the understatement of the year.

I remember those years, too, and the toes Clinton stepped on were primarily those of the Medical Industrial Complex. They defeated universal health care, and it's disgusting to see self-styled "progressives" absolving them of their role in the debacle just to prop up a candidate (a candidate, I would add, who gladly took up the MIC's Harry and Louise campaign to suit his own purposes).

Newt Gingrich and the crushing pressure against anything liberal? The screeching hatred for Bill Clinton, but the worst of it aimed at Hillary for being a liberal woman who should have known her place and baked cookies? Those people, who banished liberals from a "seat at the table" are the same people that Obama claims to have his strange power over. Oh yeah, and when you rummage through his banker supporters, some of them voted for Bush. Now that's change we can believe in. In case this is necessary, :sarcasm:

Just the other day one of them posted a thread claiming that the Republicans wouldn't have been so mean to Clinton if he hadn't been fooling around with Monica. This one posts just above that Hillary wasn't inclusive enough with the insurance and hospital corporations, and that's why they opposed her.

It's staggering. If Obama does manage to get elected, his votaries are in for a very rude awakening if they honestly believe that the Republicans want unity.

What's with comparing health insurance mandates to Social Security?

Bizarre.

that "single payer" would ultimately be a payroll (or income) tax, as Social Security is. If people "opt out" until the last minute when they need the program, it's not affordable.

obvious strawman arguments, a completely fraudluent use of a fact and check to see that the big media conspirancy is referenced. That usually takes me to the third line and I am finished.

There is too much wrong with the medical system now to think things can be done by an election alone. As your post discloses there are too many entrenched interests. I'm certain Obama will sign a Universal Healthcare Bill if it's brought to him; you have to make sure the right Health Care bill gets to his desk.

After we get Obama in place, then the real work starts. It's time to organize grassroot pressure against the Medical Industrial Complex. And I mean picketing hospitals, pharma companies, medical manufacturers, call national strikes across businesses, and keep Congress bothered with letters and protests. Be willing to tell our Congressmen (and Congress-Women) that they may lose the primary unless they get on board. That's what they pay attention to. There isn't enough turn-over in Congress, and we have to accept only the bill that gives universal health care.

And when the legislation is finished, we need President in place who will sign it. Obama or Clinton both would probably do.

We simply cannot let politicians do what they are inclined to do: compromise between industry while the people when the people's voice isn't heard. We need to be ready for the long fight that might take two presidential terms or more. Think of it as no less than a rebellion.

BTW, a very good post.

The impetus for real health-care reform - single-payer - has to come bottom-up, and it will be a long, hard-fought battle.

No one in Congress is going to bring Obama a Universal Healthcare Bill and he wouldn't sign it even if they did because everything he's said about the issue shows he's vehemently opposed to it. He's in the pockets of the insurance companies and prescription drug cartel.

This country needs Universal Healthcare desperately. It's going to take leadership from the White House to fight the entrenched interests that ensnare our representatives in Congress. They're going to have to be pushed and dragged and pummelled and publicly humiliated into it by White House leadership if it's going to happen at all during the next 4 years. And Obama will never lead on this issue. Your post demonstrates you know he won't do squat until they drop it all in his lap, which has never happened and never will happen.

However, I will point out that Obama's wink and nod "contract" with the medical industry has certain limits. He might have donations from the medical industry, but he has far more from rank & file on the Internet. Give him an excuse, and whatever favors he owes to the medical industry are dissolved.

The point is, he is not going to sacrifice donations from the rank & file by favoring the medical industry. If the people push hard enough, we'll get universal medical.

i know my doctors and nurses are fed up with insurance companies deciding what they can do and when they are getting paid. i know hospitals are tired of insurance companies taking months to pay.

I think I will make a stand along post about LBJ.

Americans spend 2 TRILLION dollars annually on HC.

Last I heard, the highest estimates for single payer UHC would cost 200-300 billion annually.

With the helpful aid of my calculator I determined that 2 trillion is 10 times more than 200 billion.

Calculators rule.

I think every Senator, Congressperson and our President should have one. Maybe then they could see that UHC isn't quite the boondoggle that the radical right is making it out to be.

Fight the good fight!

Peace.

PS

To anyone, was Social Security political suicide for FDR? I dont think so.

The work to eliminate the symptom without doing anything for the cause.

If health care was the issue I was voting on in this campaign, I would vote for McCain.


Why?


Because I would rather do nothing than put a "fix" in place that is only going to make the underlying problem worse by working to cover it up.

do what she says?

She NEVER has before.

She's a fucking liar.


Universal health care my ass - it'll go the way of gays in the military.

She opens her mouth, she lies.

I fucking hate her.

do what she says?

She NEVER has before.

She's a fucking liar.


Universal health care my ass - it'll go the way of gays in the military.

She opens her mouth, she lies.

I fucking hate her.

And it comes at an important time since those bullshit, lying ads are going around in PA. Politics as usual for Barack.

Recall Bush-Gore in 2000, all the arguments over how we were going to spend the surplus. By the time * was in office the surplus was predictably gone, but the arguments over what to do with it still animated the election. Personally I like Obama's plan because it allows choice. Any politician who promises to spend my wages whether I like it or not...well, I would not support it. And neither would the vast majority of the rest of the voters, now matter how many statistical lullaby's were cooked up to justify it.

But all that is beside the point anyway - the US budget is screwed at the moment, and getting worse. This clip of the Comptroller General is worth the time to watch, and anyone who follows economics or the markets probably has it lodged somewhere in the back of their mind: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml

As Obama said in an interview the other day about his economic agenda - there may be some crisis management to do first. Neither HRC or Obama will get what they want, and your arguments assume an economy which hasn't existed here for years.

One that too many Americans living in poverty will embrace because of apathy and despair which has been beaten into them by this oppressive system under which they live. Read the OP. Many people who qualify for free public services will not apply. Many people who qualify for employer sponsored health care will not sign up if they are low income and have to contribute even $200-300 a month---they do not have it. Or maybe they have been brainwashed into thinking they do not deserve to take care of themselves or it does not matter.

If we, the people of the US, tell all our citizens "Yes, you matter. Your health matters. We are all going to get healthy and live long lives. Here is your card. Go see a doctor" then these same people will start going.

They need someone to give them a gentle push. They need this country to start giving them positive, self affirming, nurturing messages. Telling them "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" just isn't going to cut it.

The symptoms of wealth disparity are self destructive behaviors. This has been well documented in the medical literature. People who live in poverty in a land of plenty drink, smoke, suffer depression, suffer domestic violence, die from homicide. Not all of them will sign up for health insurance just because it is available, even though they are the ones for whom it will be free. It needs to be done automatically and there needs to be a public health outreach.

The essential difference between the US and every other industrialized nation is that we have massive military expenditures, where they have massive social service expenditures. To have both is to go quickly the way of the soviet union, or any number of other bankrupt states. Nobody on either side is talking about realistic possibilities.

And I would nevertheless, as a free American, cling to my right to choose whether or not to enroll in health insurance. As it is I pay cash when I or my family need a doctor, and it has been ok.

then you are either wealthy or have been lucky so far with your health. If its merely luck, that will inevitably change as you get older.

I have a reasonable understanding of it. For the industry to make a profit - and it always makes a profit - it has to charge substantially more in premiums than it pays out in claims. That is, if you have a policy and pay $300 a month in premiums, you can be pretty certain that the industry has looked at every available risk factor of your case and concluded that it is likely to only see perhaps $100 a month in claims. If the margin is the same as when I was in it, that is.

Now, if every similar person took that $300 a month and put it in bank accounts used only to pay medical bills, 95% of those people would wind up substantially better off. Fear of health risks is legitimate, but I won't be bullied into giving up freedoms out of fear. Knowing the odds I will at least insist upon being allowed the choice, and I believe most other Americans would as well.

Because social security comes from your wages. That is a program that spends your wages, whether you like it or not.

Seriously, the only reason Obama supporters are against a mandate (the same mandate that SS and Medicare has) is because Obama isn't supporting it.

And, don't jump all over me. I am supporting Obama (by default), but his healthcare proposal is weak and it won't work.

Universal NOT FOR PROFIT system.


Simple.

Obama's Blueprint for Change doc...

His own words speak much better for his plan than yours... Nice bull$hit try though..

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

"fully intends on it." I am not only not sold on Hillary's plan, I'm terrified of it. I'm a Obama supporter anyway, but I prefer his plan by default.

as they say...on the point of health care, HRC seems to lack the key. Though I will admit her good intentions.

Please explain, if you can, how any sort of non-voluntary plan is a good thing for a person who
1) has no check to be garnished,
2) has NO income, not just low income, and thus cannot afford ANYTHING,
3) may not qualify for government aid that is tailored to single parents and other such groups.

I've been in this exact situation before. I have four, count 'em, pre-existing conditions. Three are potentially life-shortening.

I gave this some serious thought. If I'm ever in a situation where I require emergency care, or other prohibitively expensive care, and I am uninsured, I will attempt to make it legally enforceable that I choose to refuse care rather than saddle someone with a bankrupting medical bill. I'd truly rather die than cause my family to lose everything because of medical bills.

And unless someone comes up with a plan that covers the UNEMPLOYED without charging them for it, I want that option of suicide-by-refusing-care to remain open.

As long as we're dealing with the current insurance providers, health care systems, and prescription drug networks nothing is going to change. The program Clinton offers might be in some respects better than now but it's far from perfect and we already have a much better answer which both leading candidates want to ignore. Single payer coverage.

I'm not crazy about either candidates plans but between the two of them, yeah, I like Obamas better. It doesn't threaten by force of law to transfer money from me or anyone else to the same system that built this mess. We need to take that system apart, not to put it permanently on the government dole as another form of corporate welfare. Marginal improvement over today? Maybe. Maybe not. Any part of an actual solution? I tend to doubt it. More likely to get in the way of a real solution because we'll want to give this a few decades first and see how it works.

Neither candidate is truly advocating universal care--that will require a mass movement from below. Bottom line: both our candidates are pushable on this, and McSame is not.

just because...