I'm almost sure Republicans are going to attack us from the left, and here's how you can help them.

Think about it: we have a very popular Democratic president in the White House today, who is at least on the surface a person who is trying to assimilate moderate Republicans. The Republicans could try to get those voters back - but risk losing their base and not even being able to get the moderate Republicans back in some big epic fail. It is just not cool to be a Republican right now, and those people who are Republicans for the sake of looking like they are 31337 (I call them "vanitycons") can't do that because they would look even greater fail. So they're going along with Obama for now.

The further right voters are in some weird panic right now, talking all sorts of stuff about socialism and conspiracies and bowing to the Arab guy and Muslims, going to these teabag protests and generally looking scary and scaring off voters. But in their panic, they might even further panic by seeing the Republicans cater to the center and ignore them. The Republicans could risk a lot by even appearing to ditch these voters. The hard right might go into full-on militia mode in some crazed last-ditch effort to "save America" as they see it. So the party is caught between a rock and a hard place.

One thing they can do, however, which would not risk them any of their current voters, would be to simply try to sow some division from the left. If they succeed in shaving off enough voters to get them some victories, great for them, if not, they lose a little bit of money, but they have a lot. The downside is very small, but the upside might be the only upside they have right now. Anyways. So they might as well take it.

So here's how you can help: keep complaining about single-payer health care, as if anybody outside progressiveland really cares that the insurance companies can still do business and as if it's the only option that will be good. That just might be the straw that causes some Naderesque split that messes all this stuff up again. Then you will have all sorts of things to complain about, and it will be fun.

ON EDIT: I AM NOT AGAINST UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, JUST THE INSISTENCE ON SINGLE-PAYER. I SEE NO REASON WHY THERE SHOULD NOT BE A PRIVATE OPTION ALONGSIDE A PUBLIC OPTION.

That's how it works in the PretendTwo Party system

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Recommended.

You always crack me up. You should write for the movies.

Barack knows what's best for us.

I don't get why people are so insistent on this thing. If the government would be the best option for paying for health care, why not just let them do it and compete with the insurance companies rather than trying to forcibly destroy the insurance companies? If it's so good, it would be a no-brainer for people to choose the public option over the private option. Law #9 of The 48 Laws of Power is "Win through your actions, never through argument." So yeah, just shut up and let it happen.

Let it compete with private pension plans.

See if people 'choose' it.

Let me know how that goes.

Last I heard you just dial 911.

They come put out your fire.

You don't get a bill.

Their choice will come in choosing their own doctors finally and choosing the care they want! You do that for yourself once you have real coverage.

Can we all stop paying Unemployment to the government and pay it to some private company already?!?

-Hilary Clinton

That is where we are heading, without insurance, no job, without a job, no insurance.

Can you say "Catch 22"?

Sure, I knew you could.

When you lose your job and cannot maintain your insurance, then need proof of insurance to get a job, what are you going to do?

I said it right there in the original post, didn't I?

When you cannot afford the insurance thanks to losing your job, how are you going to get another job when proof of insurance is needed at the interview?

Or are you absolutely positive that will never happen to you?

Are you absolutely positive you will always have money to pay the premium for private insurance even if you lose your job?

Um, why do you keep presenting me with this false choice?

If you can't get a job without insurance and can't get insurance without a job, how then do you support yourself if you get to the point that you can't afford insurance?

Are you for the Iraq War, or do you hate the troops?

Not mine.

What she said fifteen years ago is now more relevant than ever.

That was during the recent primaries..

And Hilary is indeed part of the administration today.

If you think this isn't something the insurance companies are salivating over then you are extremely naive.

Only thing I see is posts on the Internet. For all I know, it could be fabricated.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22I+can+envision+a+day+when+you+have+to+show+proof+of+insurance+at+the+job+interview%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=%22I+can+envision+a+day+when+you+have+to+show+proof+of+insurance+at+the+job+interview%22

it. Someone with no job would be likely to fall into that category.

The standards for what you can have before you get any assistance are ridiculously low.

My son in law is going through this right now with his grandmother, in order to qualify for Medicare they had to get rid of almost her entire assets, she is basically a pauper now.

You're going to have to lose practically everything before you will qualify for an exception, wait and see.

This whole thing with forced insurance is for the benefit of the insurance companies, not the public.

Perhaps you are talking about Medicaid?

Single payer WOULD be the best option. The insurance industry is shitting bricks at the thought of it competing with private insurance because it would be a no-brainer for people.

I don't understand why you're telling us to stop insisting on it but then say to just "let them do it". THEY WON'T DO IT if we stop insisting on it!

According to Law #9, our "action" is insisting that our representatives create this single payer system. The only "argument" we have is with people like you.

What is this universal health care, of which you speak, if it is not single payer??

The public option saves only 9% compared to single payer.

Who cares.

or are you Noel? I can never remember?

So what you're saying basically is, "Don't question the party even when they make stupid decisions, because OMG TEH TERRORISTS OMG TEH REPUBLICANS might somehow benefit?

Look buddy, if the Democrats keep trying to appease the right, the republicans are going to win anyway, just by sticking with what they've had for the last thirty years. Why? Because the Democrats will be the ones driving the progressives away, the Conservatives aren't going to vote for a Democrat, and the people "on the fence" will go republican if they want "conservative" anyway.

The key to winning is to make sure we're different from the republicans, to take stands against their positions, to assert Democrat-Progressive ties, and to pursue an actual liberal agenda.

If the Republicans suddenly swing hard to the left, they'll just crash and burn. Like I said, they don't have to do anything to have a chance. So long as the Democrats keep trying to out-Right them, they've got it good. Further a Republican swing to the left on ANY issue would result in a huge split in their party - the one and only thing that unites the Christofascists, the Corporocrats, The Home Front Generals, the Pants-Pissers and the Racists that make up their party is a collective hatred for the left.

...That said I'm all for a Republican leftward swing. Hell. Might be just what the Democrats need, since the party policy seems to be more and more "act like the opposition"

Have fun with that lockstep, sheep. Lulz.

:crazy:

companies are robbing us blind and killing us directly & indirectly, while living like royalty in the process (multi-million dollar salaries, private jets, vacation retreats, stock options, etc.) and the majority of the money is through our tax dollars, that should be going back to us for our health care....instead the concern seems to be the insurance corporations bottom line, as they will drop anyone that's sick, if it cost the insurance companies a chunk of their greedy, cold-hearted, slimy gotten profits.

"Only single-payer national health insurance can make universal, comprehensive coverage affordable by saving the hundreds of billions we now waste on insurance overhead and bureaucracy."

"Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000, or 10 percent of pretax family income," the researchers wrote.

"Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes and had middle-class occupations."

The researchers, whose work was paid for by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the share of bankruptcies that could be blamed on medical problems rose by 50 percent from 2001 to 2007.

"Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," Harvard's Dr. David Himmelstein, an advocate for a single-payer health insurance program for the United States, said in a statement.

"For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection," he added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5530Y020090604

"Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year," the report reads.

But then, so is your thread!!

Nonsense, that is always the tack they resort to.

Roll-Over, Fall In Line, Take the Crumbs they won't give us anyway and be happy with it, slather yourself in the status quo and Shut the Fuck Up, Don't Question, Cheerlead for The Football team no matter what.

It gets tiresome.

I thought I had this idiot on ignore.

I should thank him for the reminder.

No matter how you cut it.

...then they will be "the Left". And that is bad, how?

OR do you mean that they will be a fake left... like the Democrats?

...like the many Republican contributors to the Nader campaign.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL

They won't really mean it?

They'll throw some money at some single-payer advocates, knowing that it's never going to happen anyways, and that it will get some far-left voters angry at the Democratic Party.

You got to love it when anyone contributes to a worthy cause.

That would be good.

I gotta tell you, his popularity just might surge if more Democrats go around espousing this private insurance protectionist stance.

In 2000, Republicans attacked from the left by supporting Nader, which brought us Bush* instead. So did we get some "leftist policy"?

a brilliant waste of....time, energy, and, well...everything.

Why should there be one in the first place?


One reason that there should be no private providers is that it is incredibly difficult to level the playing field without broad (and susceptible) legislation to restrict and regulate their activity. Any mistakes can result in a worse system than the status quo and a bankrupt public system. If you were willing to take such measures, why not attempt the simpler, more clear solution of single-payer?

Another reason is that with a single-payer, it aids health care facilities administrate their own costs. They have a single billable rate, and they know all claims will be honored. Collecting fees is incredible simple. A large part of the billing/processing/collection component of the actual providers is removed, lowering the cost of healthcare.

But really the only argument you'll need is that you'll never get this done if you take away this option. We won't get it done at all, and the question of public and private options will be moot. On the other hand, if the public option really is better, you'll pretty much get de facto single-payer anyways, and you won't have to argue about it.

Also, the government could kill you if they wanted to.

Add this to your collection of "Dumbest.posts.ever"

Its likely the public option will not be better with the clowns in charge of the legislation (it will be designed to fail). Its likely this shit will crash and burn anyway. Id be really surprised if this all works out and the people have 1) the foresight to include the proper provisions and 2) the will to do so.

If people want to create a system to maybe morph into single-payer, they are better off just going with single-payer. Quite a gamble there.

Yeah, you'd never get it done, eh? With the Democrats in charge of the government, you don't think they could get it done? If they merely lack the will, then hey, thats a good reason to start voting for your best buddy Nader again, eh?

If I remember tomorrow I might continue this discussion, but I'm thinking of that book Losing Ground from the early eighties that basically advocated genocide by cutting off social services to minorities to try to "reduce" the number of pregnancies and stop them from breeding. This isn't conspiracy junk; I first read of it in the book What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman. I might have some of the details wrong, but I might have time to look them up tomorrow. But basically think about this - what happens when the Republicans can convince people to cut off medical care to people who, say, do drugs? Because they "deserve it"?

Don't you realize that all the asshole private insurers can collectively decide to do the same fucking thing because they are assholes. Yes, it may violate anti-trust laws, but, after all, they got the government by the balls so much that a bunch of Democrats are going to bat for them.

Conspiracy theories are a shitty method of developing sound public policy.

I don't think there are ANY private insurers that don't ask about drug OR alcohol abuse for the last 10 years (as in the above mentioned example) and don't deny coverage to those who reply "yes."

The difference being, it's not "republicans convincing people", it's the private companies not having to convince anyone of anything, just making corporate policy.

but it's a standard question here. They ask whether you've used any illegal drugs or if you've ever sought treatment or counseling for drug addiction or alcoholism. One company even asks you to state how much and what type of alcohol do you consume (this one is separate from the addiction/alcoholism questions)

Thats a *huge* reason to cut private insurers out. The proof is in the pudding and either they don't honor claims or their private policies are not sufficient in paying for care.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5782658

FFS. What is important here? Keeping the Democratic Party in charge or getting this country out of the the two untenable wars we're in, get the economic/societal base stabilized so we can restructure w/o the heavy handed control of multi-national soul-sucking corporations.Now is quite possibly the last, best chance we will ever have of actually driving the corporate villians from our capitol and statehouses and it's no time to be timid.

Right fecking now is the time to investigate charge and rigorously prosecute those responsible for getting us involved in Iraq under less than truthful circumstances, the ensuing war crimes and the authorization of torture, no matter who they are, position held or party affiliation.The time is now to DEMAND universal coverage.single payer health care,guaranteed college education or technical training equivalent. It's time for gay marriage and abortion on demand to be the safe, convenient and taken for granted right of every American. It is time for silly ass moves like removing shoes before taking a plane get put back into the refuse bin they came from. It's time we all knew exactly who was reading our emails and listening to our phone calls,to rename the accountability office back to accounting office and get rid of the newspeak *homeland* security* seige mentality.National defense serves the purpose just fine w/o the ominous Orwelian overtones,TYVM. And it's time to pack the courts with the leftest most radical activist jurists that can be persuaded to wear black.

But y'all keep doin the *safe* thing, the thing that's right for the party instead ofthe hard work what needs to be done and next year at this time the pundits wil be talking about drop in power the Dems suffered.

with you all the way.

the democratic party was COMLICIT in engaging in and continuing those illegal wars, COMPLICIT in destabilizing the economic/social base, has been and continues to be COMPLICIT in support of corporations over people,

right fecking now is the time for people to recognize what the democratic party is-the party of complicity with corporatism under the guise of "pro-people". they are very good at what they do, convincing people that nader is the enemy we have to be most concerned about.

"When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.

We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress."

-- Howard Zinn, Are We Politicians or Citizens?

http://www.progressive.org/mag_zinn0507

It's not a stretch to apply the same logic used by Howard Zinn in his argument to your argument advocating not pushing single-payer health insurance coverage. People who push for health care reform, be it single-payer or otherwise, don't have to adopt the compromises of the legislators. Their role is simple: As a pressure group.

Uh...no thanks. I might be getting screwed, but I refuse to thank them for the honor.

often profit from those Companies. I remembered that as I read the vapid snark the OP casts out to others on this most serious of issues.
Some folks are craven compromisers to the bone. Others just want to keep their jobs.