Oh, not this s*** again. Geez.

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=1281

I swear these dudes could simultaneously work for the "left" and Pajamas media at the same time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8559136

I think this unrec'ing is bad, unless one can see who the perpetrators are.

And I notice they've disabled comments for the post. They don't let JK speak for himself or anyone else either! Real commitment to free speech, guys.

It's almost like I am in a different political party from them. I just do not see things the way they do. I see Sen. Kerry as clearly the most liberal member of the Finance committee and one of the most liberal in the Senate. He is their friend, yet they slam him. I just don't get it.

Several were very frings - and the criticism was at them - and no they are not effective.

with the two year olds comment. It's frustrating and I am not sure how to explain it. And of course it's not only about Kerry. It's this all black/white thing, if you are not 100% with us --> you are against us (where did I hear that...?), frantically jumping to conclusions based on barely any information, etc., etc. And unfortunatly not much of this type of behavior seems to be correlated with chronoogical age, to the extent that I know or can guess/infer the age of various posters. Makes me feel very cynical at times and I don't like that :-(.

..so they assume he's "caving in". :eyes:

Talk about missing the bigger picture..

The fact though is Kerry looks intelligence, polite and open to questions. They look rude, childish and unable to understand reality.

The comment here are pathetic.

"I'm working to get them to support real reform: a strong public option, strict regulations of the insurance industry, no more denials, fraud, pre-existing, etc..."

I don't think saying, "We don't have the votes" cuts it. People just want to hear that they're standing up to any obstructionism. We don't have the votes makes them seem callous and disinterested.

Sorry to disagree here.

At this point in time the conservative/moderate Dems could form a coalition to get through a more thinly defined health care plan. The more liberal wing of the party, along with the President, would then have to decide if some health care reform is good enough to vote for or not. They would also have to consider that if they do not vote for that, they will be subject to ads that say they ran against health insurance reform and legislation that would have benefited 90-95% of Americans because it was not perfect.

We have very high stakes here. It is also a given that no one is going to be 100% happy with the legislation that comes out. No one, not on our sides, left or right, or theirs. It is always this way. There is no perfect piece of legislation only what we can get through now and improve on next time.

I agree that a rational person would like what you wrote, but the questioner was like the worse one track mind here. Kerry was walking from a car, in the lobby and going up the elevator. He very likely did not have time for a conversation - especially one that would have ended up with Kerry likely being called out for compromising, for selling out, for being a DINO etc. Kerry did say that they wanted to get something done - and he was cut off.

By keeping his answer short and repetitious and calm - they got nothing on him other than a comment that he was for it and nowhere near enough other Senators are. This, in fact, helps us. There are many leftie sources bizarrely targeting Kerry - as being one of the worst against the public option. A complete blatant lie - and they are sensitive when called out on it!

Kerry did a fantastic job being polite, respectful, open to questions - even moving at the end to look at the guy after his people were surrounding him in the elevator. This as the questioner became progressively ruder. He really wasn't there to get a real answer.

you do not base conclusions and judgement on subliminal reactions to fuzzy nuances. I am not referring to you, by the way, but to those who jump to conclusions because they didnot hear the EXACT words they were expecting. I agree, had he sais what you suggest, the reaction MAY have been different. Did he HAVE to say it? IMHO no.

he gave them more time and words than he really needed to. He was very polite, and answered questions well beyond what one reasonably should expect from partisan shouters. Remember the Right did this to him a couple of years ago. He handled it precisely the same way.

Also, I am opposed to single payer myself, as the countries I have studied which have better health care usually have a combo system: public/private hybrid. Holland's is only private but heavily regulated, Germany and France are hybrid. England and Canada are single payer, and I think they are problematic systems. I am not an ideologue on this, but a pragmatist. Let's get the best universal health care system, that Americans will like, that we can. Americans would never like single payer. So John Kerry is actually to the "left" of me. Regardless though, he agrees with that group but explains we don't have the votes. I think only 5 Senators would vote for single payer, so it really is the most truthful answer, even if the truth hurts.

I am actually glad these people are out there. They make a case that the Democrats do not cave to their left wing crazies.

We are not going to get single-payer. If we are very luck we may get a public option that would be a framework that we can add to as will and votes allow. That would be a very good thing.

that they do not make valid points and requests.

ie...most 'left winged crazies' support single-payer but that's because they've taken the time to educate themselves about the different choices. And chances are that more moderates and even some 'religious conservatives' (not the type you see on tv) will support it too.

Or take Cindy Sheehan or Code Pink. They say some really horrible stuff about them. But they're 'mostly' right too.

I think the problem is more basic than if they look like they're caving to the crazies. I think the problem is that they have to cave to large businesses and their lobbies and they have all but 5 hours a day devoted to smearing Dems and their causes. (Not including Fox in this since they're 24/7 365...) (And those 5 hours are an improvement over the 2 that we had in 2004.)

Thank God for the Comedy Channel. It's the only place to get the truth.

are crazies. They are not making sound arguments. They are doing attack videos that mean to smear and disparage anyone who had the audacity to disagree with them.

This has nothing to do with the rational debate of people who want a single-payer system for the US.

I think that the advocates for this point of view would go further if they didn't have the crazies trying to "help" them. I think the RW crazies "helped" doom the GOP in 2006 and 2008. They do not sound rational, they do not sound like they tolerate debate and they don't seem capable of explaining a position.

One is not the other. And one side, in expressing their right to dissent, harm their overall cause.

Frankly, those who have "studied" and come up with this ONLY read what they want to hear. They don't bother to learn about each system in countries with universal health care, some of which are single payer others which are not. What I want is universal health care that everyone can afford. Reduced costs in the future. No pre-existing conditions requirements. And good care. I don't care how you get there. Just get there.

I consider my position "moderate to liberal". The Blue Dogs are "conservative". The Republicans are "reactionary". The single payer people who know they have lost the fight at this late stage who continue to scream are "far left" and when they refuse to understand basic math are "crazy".

I think those who have fixated on "single payer" or even "public option" are missing at least half of what is happening.

No matter how the healthcare is provided, adding subsidies up to 4 times the poverty level, getting rid of the factor of pre-existing conditions, and letting everyone get a "group" vs an individual rate are enormous, very important changes.

Yet, Kerry is being targeted by the bold progressives and the DFA, although they say that he will be off their list if he issues THEIR SENTENCE essentially saying that he would not vote for any compromise. I would flame Kerry and anyone else who voted against a bill that gets over 95% of people covered and has those features - which I think are common to all bills out there.

Though I don't think we want to be like the right, their activists take their talking points from the slimy talk radio/cable/RW all distorting in the same way Democratic initiatives they want to stop. Our fringe attacks not only our conservatives, but our moderates and our liberals - before even thinking of the Republicans. (In fact, the most annoying comment i got was that they respect
Kerry and want him to lead. I suspect that part of the reason he is always their target is that they do see he can lead and see that he does listen - and they are frustrated that he won't be their hero leading with Kucinich positions. There has to be some reason they pick him not any other Democrat. )

Regulations will help if they follow through on those serious ones.

But as someone who has first hand experience about the insurance industry and the claims dept, I have to say that those regulations on their own do not stop the private insurance's fraudulent actions. Take medical coders...each plan has it's own code, as does each insurance agency. These companies intentionally change the codes practically bi-weekly and changes the doctor's actions (or patients) and then the claim ends up denied. Then even as much as 3 years after they've paid the check to the doctor, they will go back and take their money back and have the doctor or hospital rebill the patient.

This is done intentionally.

Single payer prevents people from having to guess at codes. There's no screwing around and trying to get out of payment.

And even with single-payer a person still has the option of getting more insurance via a private insurance company.

And even though there are other countries who have hightly regulated insurance and it works there, I am extremely pessimistic about that type of thing working here. After all, the lobbies control our Congressmen (and even Presidents as proved by GWB). I'm not willing to trust them to keep the insurance companies honest. We can't even keep them honest!

that I am fiscally conservative and believe in strong oversight of all insurance companies, businesses, and governmental jobs. There is waste and fraud everywhere and the tax payers should expect accountability no matter where their money is going.

But the fact is that with single payer even small businesses and many large corporations would be able to save money. This translates into more people hired or more research or healthier employees. It would also eliminate the need for other line-by-line deductions an employer has to make. For example, they would not have to contribute to both an employee's health care (via private insurance) where they've jacked up the prices each year and covered less items. And they would not have to contribute to a workman's compensation fund where they actually investigate if an injury happened on the job or at home.

You would also have more privacy under a universal single payer system because each illness or surgery has one code only. That means you don't have to waste money (and time or research) to get a bill paid and instead can actually hire more doctors, nurses, physical therapists, etc... More people could get seen because you're replacing a quicksand-like-job with a person who is qualified to actually help you medically.


And thus, single payer and even a 'robust public option' does save money. It prevents fraud. It allows real health care instead of junk insurance. And from the stand point of paying out to a nonprofit insurance who actually acts as a profit insurance or paying the same amount into a government sponsored program, I know where I'd put my money!

I do not believe it's only a 'crazy liberal' who supports single-payer even at this point. It's completely wrong to classify people that way. Single payer proponents are not hearing voices from "God." Nobody is radically threatening to kill or maiming people, as the anti-abortion people do. And you do not have to be a crazy lib and in fact can be a moderate financially speaking and still support single payer. Many studies show that single-payer is fiscally responsible and humane. And honestly, as a 'liberal' and as a 'moderate' on a whole variety of issues, I really don't think it's fair to call them 'crazies' because they strongly support single-payer. They are being advocates. Without advocates, we'd would never have made the advancements we have.

when they can't add 1 plus 1 and get 2. What Kerry said was correct. You need at least 51 votes, and we are not even close. And we will never get there.

Again, other countries have achieved universal health care without single payer. I do not think we should model ourselves after Canada and England. I am simply unimpressed by their systems, even if they are better than our current American system.

Single payer is a left position. It is not moderate. It is the farthest left one can go. It means putting all health insurance companies out of business, and having the government taking over all health care. It is radical for our country to go down that road. England set up their system shortly after WWII. It was less radical then. But we have something already in place, which millions of Americans like. I think it is way too far to go.

to vote. And in a more modern context, more people would still believe that Saddam was involved in 9-11.

Sorry, but I adamantly disagree with you on this. They may not accept the 'number of votes' but what they do want to know is that every ounce of energy is spent convincing people that single-payer and/or a strong public option is both fiscally responsible (for both the gov't and every day citizens) and it's more humane than the practice of private for profit insurance companies.

Congressmen/women have for too long forgotten their role to protect the common good of the people and that their role isn't to fund their own political campaigns by accepting money for legislative actions. And so even though Senator Kerry may have been satisfied with his response, all of us have the right to go to get their words, put it on the public record, and to react to it the way we believe we will. As long as they are doing it civilly and without violence, then it's their constitutional right they're expressing. And that is part of being an activist is never backing down when you feel you are right. (As long as you don't cross the line into stalking or violence like the anti-choicers do.)

http://www.openleft.com/diary/14427/the-public-option-versus-singlepayer-nonargument

Interesting.

I disagree with comparing single payer to women's rights. One is a government program for health care, the other basic civil rights supposedly guaranteed in the Constitution. Sorry, but health care for all is not in the Constitution the way rights for our citizens are.

Thing is, if we were a parliamentary system country, I would NOT be in the same political party as these lefties. They do not represent my values.

Common good is therefore in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes to "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Since FDR's times, it's come to mean 'common welfare' of the people. That's why we have things like Social Security and other protective measures.

So in a sense, both causes took long battles, many years, lots of advocacy. And though single-payer may not prevail this year, those who advocate for it will keep up the battle the same as the Suffragette did. Many see both as inherent to the intent of the Constitution. And Suffragette's was implemented as a derogatory term for those advocating for women's suffrage. They were called militant. The single-payer people often have the same biases held against them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Germany



Two things: one, there is both public and private. And, private is better, but for higher income earners, which is why it only covers 12% of the population. (those on the pubic plan are now having to pay out more and more, and less is getting covered). Secondly, there has been a universal health care system in Germany since 1883, yet, I think we can all agree human rights and civil rights came much, much later. Civil and human rights are higher rights than health care. And "common good" is subject to interpretation, NOT the right to vote.

Now, is the time when there is a very real chance to pass what will be the biggest improvement since the 1960s. This window will not necessarily remain opened forever. This is not the time for a Senator of Kerry's prominence to undertake a quixotic crusade for an alternative with no chance of success. Not to mention, the plan Kerry is backing is Kennedy's. This really is a time when working to gain support for the possible really is the right thing to do. Sanders has a bill that has no co-sponsors. Kerry of any other high profile Democrat, who advocated for single payer now would be showboating to the left.

I think it is reasonable for activists to ask questions. I even think it reasonable to want the Senators to speak on record. This guy did not threaten the Senator in the least. What I do have a problem with here is the rudeness and the frame. By rudeness, I refer to the his accusatory tone and the fact that he continued pursuing Kerry after he politely answered the question. By frame, I refer to the fact that he likely had his interpretation written before he even encountered the Senator. Single payer by definition eliminates the insurance companies as we know them from health care - yet he took Kerry's admission of that - and turn it into an accusation that that is why the Congress people excluded it. That was his conclusion, not Kerry's. Here, even though Kerry was closer to his side than he likely expected and he is a very polite person, who clearly believes people have the right to question him, he did not return that respect.

As to the insurance companies, they can work to help to resolve those problems. I only know the insurance industry as a customer - though one who has had considerable interactions with them, so I don't know what they have tried to do. In telecommunications and other engineering fields, there are industry standards groups. These are industry supported groups that develop standards that all the companies then use. (In their case, if this were not done, there is a potential that things wouldn't work.) I assume the government could create an incentive for them to develop one to standardize codes and forms and deal with any other issues. ( The "market place" might be a place where this could be done. It is somewhat related to the role of putting together the comparisons.) This would help every doctor's office, insurance office and the patients.

I have talked about this without hard feelings. I do support a robust plan. If people want to keep their insurance that's great. I have not had good experiences with the private industry so I'm not sympathetic to helping them stay in business. But I do realize that we just need to make sure public plan doesn't become co-ops. In my view, you just as well not have a co-op because the insurance giants will crush them in a matter of months. They're totally not feasible. But I do believe that we both believe that strict regulations of private industries with a hammer and nails for oversight would be great too. (and I don't think they should be allowed to call themsevles 'nonprofit' when the CEO's of these nonprofits make as much personal money from denials of coverage and illegal activities as Cheney did during the Iraq war.)

P.S. I'm sorry if I sound cranky. I am tired--overly tired. But I have been trying extra hard to not get cranky on the boards.