Republican single-payer resistance summarized:

Most Republicans and business groups are just as ardently opposed, saying that private insurers would end up going out of business, unable to compete with a government plan that didn't have to make a profit.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jun/10/us-health-overhaul-061009/?politics&zIndex=113948

---

My answer is "That would be bad why?" :shrug:

They still have the technical insurance industry experience, so odds are thier jobs would simply transition from the private to the public sector.
If anything, MORE insurance jobs will be created because public sector ventures have more levels of oversight, imo.

The executives might be out of a job. Oh well, thanks for playing - don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
:)

exist providing supplemental insurance. The argument is bogus. This isn't about 'jobs'... or competition. It's about the health of americans and the economy as well as our ability to compete with the world.

Wouldn't the taxes, if needed, be a lot less than monthly premium payments?

The government has a long history and by governments I mean both sides....hell I mean all of them all over the world, of taking and taking and taking and taking and taking etc.

Personally if we could move to a system that paid for itself through well managed profitability or almost profitability that was subsidized through a better balanced budget that cut back in other areas then I think it would be easier for the majority to accept a small increase in taxes to help further subsidize.

Lets face it the great majority of folks are not very happy with the government right now and have very little faith in its ability to do ANYTHING well. Again, this is an indictment of THE GOVERNMENT not one side or the other.

Chris

However, the public has no say in this debate. Unless you want to call a handful of industry barons and insiders "the public". Technically that's right, though they're a tiny minority segment of the public that really does not deserve such an inordinate amount of say about what happens to their parasitical industry.

just spend and spend. The only difference is that the republicans just borrowed and spent. The dems spend, but at least try to figure out how to pay for it. But they do spend. And some of that spending seems unnecessary. It's easy to spend someone else's money I guess.

As far as taxes to cover insurance.... I would like to see someone come out with some actual figures about how much we would be paying compared with our premiums. I think if folks could see what exactly it meant as far as cost to them monthly or yearly as opposed to just generalizations about taxes being increased to pay for it. We already are paying for it. We just need to show how that is.

government run healthcare would be more inefficient than private healthcare creating less healthcare value, despite the lack of need for public sector business profits. I can understand that fear because (generally) the more red tape and public intervention something has, the more convoluted and expensive it tends to be. However, this is why we must dilligently police the proposed plan and be the policy makers police - weeding out the riff raff and pork.

I believe the taxes CAN be less than monthly premiums, but will not be unless we police the legislation our administration proposes.

For almost my whole life, I've been on the single-payer Canadian system and I've NEVER, EVER had contact with a siingle person from the government.

It's just me and my doctor - no paperwork, no forms to fill out, no phone calls to a government office, no bills.

The beauty of single payer is that there are NO interventions of any kind. The only thing the government does is set the standards, issue health cards and PAY for my health care.

and all those things insurance companies WILL NOT cover.

So please take my comments at simple face value from the village idiot.

I think a big fear that most and I personally have is that anything the government runs is generally run very very poorly and that driving the profit/capitalism out of health care will stifle advances.

Now, morally, I do feel like everybody deserves some level of care I just don't know how it could be accomplished.

I know a great many Canadians (the closest folks I know with sort-a-kinda socialized/single payer/whatever types of systems) and they HATE there health care system and would much rather have the U.S. system. Again take this as nothing more then anecdotal evidence from somebody who freely admits they are not as educated on the subject as they should be.

I think the problem is the age old one of have and have nots. Those of us who have reached a certain point in our lives where we are reasonably well to do, blessed, lucky, whatever are generally happy with our health care. The problem is the folks who have not have not reached this level and therefore get nothing basically. The question in my mind is how do you help/provide for them but not as a simple handout or whatever but as a crutch to allow them to better themselves overall in order to reach a point of prosperity.

The village idiot has spoken, so that it is written so shall it be done. :D

When has the insurance industry ever made an "advance" that wasn't just a convoluted way to lie to people to trick them out of more money?

I also generally hear the opposite about Canadians and other countries' nationals on their own health care systems vs the US, though all anecdotal.

"I think the problem is the age old one of have and have nots. Those of us who have reached a certain point in our lives where we are reasonably well to do, blessed, lucky, whatever are generally happy with our health care."

Yeah? You think?

Not everyone will reach that point in their lives. Not everyone is blessed, or lucky. By definition, not everyone can be an above-average valued worker.

Yet every human being has a right to health. How can you be successful, how can you ever reach your full potential ("a certain point in our lives", as you so carelessly put it), if you are unhealthy? You will have a much harder time, and again, not everyone is lucky. Many people persevere until it kills them.

This is a critical unfairness in our system that is within reach of address. Insurance companies cost more because they must extract profits from their business. Government run care is more fair and cheaper. At least in the spirit of competition a public option should exist.

How can insurance companies take in more than they pay out? The only service they provide is cold payouts. If they paid more than they took in, in the long OR short runs, they could not function. The house always wins. They are casinos, and being healthy when there is adequate care available for what ails, is not something that people should have to gamble for.

an uneducated more emotional position. I am working on getting the facts down.

That being said a great many folks fear that if health care radically changes, regulates, socializes whatever then there will be forced limits on what X drug or Y procedure can cost. Now this may be all well and good for right now but long term it may likely drive the desire to research, develop, produce and implement new drugs / procedures because the pay back profit period is much too long. Personal gain drives folks in general.

I am not saying we don't need to have some changes or an overhaul I just don't know what those should be.

As for the Canuk's (I say that with love) like I said, its going to be anecdotal/possibly area specific. I have no statistics saying they hate their system just a bunch of folks I know which in the whole factual scheme of things means.......well basically nothing. :D But again, we are talking perceptions and fears hear based more on emotion then fact, which I HATE so I am working on the education piece, just not there yet.

I made some large edits to my previous post, please check it.

I don't think people in general care about the stifling of advances due to a government system. It's too convoluted and debateable an idea.

There IS a perception that government-run things are less efficient. We need to address this in every avenue of society.

Perhaps there was a time when government was less cost effective than private entities. However, that was before CEOs made 400 times what their workers made. Before relentless cost cutting and ever soaring greed stripped all quality from private products, and all value from companies save for the paychecks of their directors and executives. And of course, the holy stock dividends and stock value.

Now, it is difficult to find an area in which the government can't outperform private enterprise.

The (IMO negligeable) growth stifling you speak of is the opposite side of a coin that is extremely valuable to the public. That is the massive bargaining power that a government program could employ. Further, there would be a huge reduction in administrative costs that are associated with calling insurance companies over and over and over and begging for payment - trying to reconcile a thousand different systems that create far more legwork than it is worth. One centralized plan would simplify matters greatly, shorten waiting times at the clinic, and save tons of money.

The counterargument to that is "where would the insurance jobs go?" Simple - they would migrate to the government system as it proved that it could hold its own against the bloated and pointless insurance industry.

It seems like you are conflating the health care and insurance industries. One provides a valuable service, the other is a drain on society.

This is a charged and complex issue and I can see why folks get defensive, no big deal. Like I said I want to hear arguments, learn, get educated. Not sure where I stand at this point. Morally I firmly believe everybody should have adequate, available health care.

My comments are not meant to pee in anybody's Corn Flakes they are just an example of the uneducated masses so to speak, the difference is I WANT to be educated before I make any decisions etc.

Take care,
Chris

because you have not reached them. that is the problem. people THINK they have decent insurance, until they need it for more than their annual check up and birth control pills.

The phony story being told in your media about our system is NOT TRUE! No.1/... The government MAKES NO DECISIONS on our treatment or care. The doctors do that. No.2/...We choose our own doctors. The government has no say in that either. What the government does is PAY THE BILLS! We do have waiting lists for elective surgery, but important and serious stuff is taken care of right away. We all have access to all specialists and all operations and treatments. I keep hearing your media and some of your politicians saying that you don't want the government between you and your doctor like in Canada. Well, don't believe them. The government is the bill-payer PERIOD!
P.S...I just heard a media person on MSNBC using the catch phrase again...government run health care....IT IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT GOVERNMENT RUN!

Not media bias, individual bias and I am smart enough to know that anecdotes don't add up to stats/truth.

But they do drive the emotional aspect of it, which needs to be overcome in the public if this is to go anywhere.

There is no clear cut, easy to understand summary of this is how X is gonna work and this is how X is better for the average Joe and this is our evidence as to why we feel this way. Until that happens its a tough sell.

remember?

I am soooooo sick of hearing the opposite...particularly when it comes out of the mouths of U.S. pols who drink at the wallet of the insurance industry.

Thanks if you feel comfortable doing this! :hi:

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3009706

"Those of us who have reached a certain point in our lives where we are reasonably well to do, blessed, lucky, whatever are generally happy with our health care. The problem is the folks who do not have not reached this level and therefore get nothing basically. The question in my mind is how do you help/provide for them but not as a simple handout or whatever but as a crutch to allow them to better themselves overall in order to reach a point of prosperity. "

Are you aware that many jobs do not offer group medical insurance to their employees, or at least some of them?

Are you aware that individual insurance is way more expensive than group medical insurance?

Are you aware that many people can't get individual insurance because of pre-existing conditions? Or else they'll sell you insurance, with riders attached that say they won't cover some pre-existing condition(s) EVER?

Sounds like to me you're saying when people have "reached a certain point of prosperity" they automatically have good health care.

By the way, a national health plan is NOT a HANDOUT; it's paid for with taxes.

This we agree on "I think the problem is the age old one of have and have nots." Those who HAVE good group medical insurance or are covered by Medicare (a form of national health insurance) are happy with what they've got, and those who don't have insurance or aren't covered by Medicare want some kind of fricking health care coverage.

What Republicans seem to think is that everyone can prosper if they just want it enough. That is not true. Yes some folks can get a "hand up" and begin to thrive, but there are a lot of people that for a variety of reasons will just tread water all their lives, struggling to keep from going under. It is not necessarily because of a character flaw. It could be luck of the draw, the circumstances they were born into, etc.

So how do you rectify your point of "how do you help/provide for them but not as a simple handout or whatever but as a crutch to allow them to better themselves overall in order to reach a point of prosperity" when our society all but guarantees that an underclass will always exist? Why not just help some people get by, as opposed to assuming a temporary hand to get them "better?" Some people may only be able to manage a subsistence life. I want to make sure they get life's necessities too, including health care. I do not resent them for needing a handout. I freely offer it. They have the right to dignified treatment as much as a CEO does.

I pay $1000 a month for my health insurance, which is more than 20% of my income, with no end in sight. So right now, I'm subsidizing you if you get your insurance from a corporate plan which can bargain as I am unable to do as an individual. So how much more of a handout do I have to give you on your way to your prosperity?

They don't care for the waits, the inconvenience. And they sometimes complain about it.

But they know that they won't be rendered destitute by some random illness or accident.

(and sometimes I think they just like to complain, just a little)
:hi:

thru institutions like the CDC and the universities.

Drug companies and others make up the rest.

Sorry, I've never heard of the insurance companies being innovators, in fact the opposite, they will often not cover innovation. For example take chantix-good ol' allopathic medicine with pills and everything, works great for many, and lord knows the insurance companies want you to quit smoking otherwise they charge you an arm and a leg for insurance.

Seems most plans don't cover this medicine. Could it be their stocks and investments in tobacco companies? Could it be that they make too much overcharging smokers then denying claims?

Dunno, I'm a bit of a village idiot too, but I fail to see how the government could be nearly as venal, useless and greedy as the insurance companies which are really just middle-'no'-men standing between us and treatment. Single-payer doen't mean the government intrudes upon treatment or stifles innovation. It doesn't happen in Canada or Europe, why should we suppose it will happen here?

PS: I have worked all my life in undervalued professions without insurance. I have as much time invested in my career and skill as anyone else and pretty much don't ask nobody for nothing. For what I contribute to this society, I want more than the satisfaction of making my bosses very welthy. I think I deserve to have health care as much as they deserve their wealth.

they would not cover it at all. it was like $180!! just for the starter!! so nix that. When we switched to Cigna, which generally sucks because we have high deductibles... at least they did cover it. And we paid like $80(?) maybe towards the first round. Which was better than paying it all. He has been smoke free for like eight weeks now. Thanks to the chantix. btw... he has tried several times to quit before. He was on wellbutrin and inadvertantly quit smoking for a year and then started up again.

It did tick me off, as they want you to quit, but don't want to pay for the meds that may help you with that. But I guess that's how great our system is.

My hubby tried it but had the sleep disturbancese and couldn't continue.

Good luck! :hi:

since I can't afford private health insurance, I have none. People like me would rather have a medicare style program than nothing. I could afford a Medicare priced policy... but not one that is $1200 per month.

I would LOVE a Canadian style system. To counter your anecdotal stories, I know several people who went to Canada to get their healthcare, so it's a wash. ( One was an ex- pro footballer.. had cancer. I don't know if he was a Canadian citizen or not, but he left the US to go to BC for care) In fact, I don't know any Canadians who wish for our system. Zero.

This disturbs me:
"The problem is the folks who have not have not reached this level and therefore get nothing basically. The question in my mind is how do you help/provide for them but not as a simple handout or whatever but as a crutch to allow them to better themselves overall in order to reach a point of prosperity."

What is wrong with a handout? This implies that somehow I am lazy, or unsuccessful. At age 60, you want me to "better myself?" I chose an arts field. I have a college degree. I teach ballet and have for 35 years... as an artist and a self-employed person, I did just fine until the last few years. I used to be able to afford private insurance, but no longer.
Now I'm just waiting until I get to be 65 and hope nothing happens. There are some people who will NEVER, ever "reach a point of prosperity" This kind of thinking is just so unreal.

You seem like a nice guy, but please.. think about the real world. It's like you have bought into the whole " I've got min, so fuck you" mindset.

And you are absolutely correct there is a level of I worked hard to get where I am so F' U. so to speak. I don't really feel that way overtly but I would agree there is that undertone of thought.

Now that being said I completely agree there are situations, such as yours where there is little choice etc. But what if you were in this situation at say age 30? In my mind, at least how I am wired, I believe in an adapt and overcome type strategy. Move to something different that pays the bills so to speak. Simplistic, yes no argument but this attitude has worked for me.

Now none of what I am saying is that I am vehemently against some form of universal health care. I don't think I am, I just haven't yet been able to wrap my mind around how to do it, efficiently, and in a financially feasible way. (NOT SAYING IT DOESNT EXIST, just saying that I don't yet see/grasp it and like I said I freely admit to not being the sharpest tack in the drawer on a great many things and freely admit to being ignorant(uneducated) in a great many subjects. Part of my learning process is discussion/devils advocacy etc. So please don't take my comments as simple Screw you guys I got mine, I'm going home.

Post offices, roads, social security (the check is always good and always on time), garbage collection, municipal water, the greatest military on earth, the FAA, etc.

The "Government is evil and inefficient" meme is pure Republican propaganda designed to take power away from the government (We the People) and give it to big business.

I hear you. A lot of people believe this insidious meme, but it's a lie, and it has very real and very bad political consequences for us all.

And, welcome to DU! :)

:dem:

-Laelth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8463926

Here is kind of what you sound like:

There will be no bipartisan reform fellow citizens unless by that you mean the Democrats capitulate to every horrible and ugly instinct about the undeserving masses of poor working slobs in this nation who the Republicans see as lazy, fat, undeserving and certainly beneath their status in life.

I heard it all again yesterday in the hearing in the House Education and Labor sub-committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, as a hearing on a single payer option for reform brought out in its classic and clearest form the "blame the victims" strategy that the elitists in the Republican party have sold us on this issue and many others for decades - ever since the dawning of that "new day in America" in the early 1980s.

where you have healthcare or can afford it... so you have earned it. but others who don't have it haven't. and you don't want it to be a 'handout'. so, healthcare is a privilege to you. which you have earned and others have not, i guess. this is very simplistic. I have reached a point where I am better off than others... but our insurance rates keep going up while the pay remains stagnant. My husband did not get a raise last year, but his insurance went up $100/mo. The insurance was ok, but we had to switch to a cheaper one with higher deductibles and switch our kids to child health plus. I guess we should just thank our stars that our income level was such that we didn't have to have them uninsured for 6 months first before they were eligible.

I seriously doubt that your 'friends' would rather have OUR system. unless they are rich people who can afford whatever while the rest of us get to worry about the possibility of being laid off and losing our healthcare. So, then, not only is it the fear of losing a job, but of losing healthcare. But that's just tough luck for us.

It's not the haves versus the have nots, except for those that have who are only concerned with themselves and couldn't care less about others. The trouble is, that even if they have insurance, and what they feel is good insurance, they won't really know until some illness happens and they find out the fine print that winds them up bankrupt or unable to get care.

But... as long as you've got yours.

...prefers it to what is found in the U.S. Why? Because it is free and it does what it is suppose to do.

What else is there to dicuss??? :shrug:

having contractions and filling out forms. I did, when i was having my oldest who is ten now. That was fun. The contractions were about five minutes apart at the time. Probably would have been funny to watch. Then there is the hoops you have to jump through. Bet they don't have to. Like did you know that if an ambulance comes to get you in an emergency you are supposed to call the insurance company to get approval beforehand.

And my dad, who had insurance as a retiree through kodak so i am not sure what it was... when he was in the hospital basically wasn't even lucid enough to sign a power of attorney as he had very aggressive cancer and didn't have long to live... he got a thing from the insurance company in the mail... at his house (which he was in the hospital of course) which he had to fill out regarding his 'accident' and if there wasn't someone else who could have to pay for it. He was in the hospital in ICU by that time and I think we were lucky enough to have one day where he was even remotely aware of what was going on and was almost talking like normal. But he was supposed to fill out this form or else they would probably deny the claim. Luckily my sister was a health proxy and filled it out. But we wouldn't have even known about it had my brother not gone over there to look for papers and such and get passwords to pay dad's bills online.

Imagine if WE THE PEOPLE could vote on where healthcare research was spent. I don't know about you, but penis-pills and breast implant proceedures have no place receiving even a fraction of the money cancer and AIDS research deserves. Perhaps with public sector helthcare and public spending input, we can get MORE medical breakthroughs than corporate healthcare could deliver.

then you are going to research things that can make you money. that's why there is the saying... the money isn't in the cure... it's in the treatment.

public service, government healthcare is not "about the money".

who successfully compete with a government entity (USPS)

...put insurance companies ahead of the sick, hurting, ill, injured and dying citizens of this nation.

Unreal...:puke:

Their posturing about "choice" is utter and abject hypocrisy.

That would be the best thing to ever happen to this country.