Would you trade congressional majority for healthcare?

I for one(unpopular I'm sure) would not.

I would rather get nothing done on healthcare, than lose being the majority party in the halls of congress.
Lose the battle but live to fight another day,
Thats just me.

so it's no different than the repubs running shit.

We have unusually large majorities in both the House and Senate, yet little of our Democratic agenda is being accomplished. I'd happily take healthcare and the ability to blame the Republicans for getting nothing done, than no healthcare and Republicans blaming us for getting nothing done.

It's the worst of both worlds for congressional Democrats. Not only are they not forcing through their agenda, they're still getting all the blame for legislation they aren't even passing (and may never pass).

A good single payer system will also ensure that the Democrats would have decades of political power because once people used it they would vote the Democrats back in.

national catastrophe is affecting uninsured and insured alike.

I have no doubt our dysfunctional non-health care system is a major contributor to our current economic woes in addition to the needless suffering and stress, the American People are facing.

So to answer your question, yes I would make the trade but I don't believe that would be the result and at worst it would be a temporary setback.

...people from dying or facing financial ruin resulting from health setbacks.

what are the BASELINE numbers to compare 18000-22000 to?

as a pure guess I'd say 75% of those would still dye or face financial ruin.

"Similar results were found by the Commonwealth Fund in a recently released scorecard on the performance of the US health system.(7) Outcomes in the United States were compared against those achieved by top countries or the top 10% of US states, hospitals, or other providers. The scorecard evaluated multiple indicators of health outcomes, including mortality, life expectancy, and the prevalence of health conditions that limit the capacity of adults to work or children to learn. The average ratio score for the United States was a 69 out of a possible 100.(7) The United States ranked 15th out of 19 countries with respect to preventable deaths before the age of 75, with a death rate more than 40% higher than the benchmark countries of France, Japan, and Spain. The United States ranked last in infant mortality out of 23 industrialized countries, with rates more than double the benchmark countries of Iceland, Japan, and Finland. The United States tied for last on healthy life expectancy at age 60.(7)"

This percentage only refers to deaths, I would imagine financial ruin would drop even more dramatically, but even if your pure guess were correct a 25% reduction in deaths would be more than what we've lost in Iraq and I believe Afghanistan combined to date and that would be every year.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6182103

Here is more.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090812_the_real_death_panels

<snip>

The best estimate of the annual death toll among Americans of working age due to lack of insurance or under-insurance is at least 20,000, according to studies conducted over the past decade by medical researchers, and the number is almost certainly rising as more and more people lose their coverage as costs continue to go up.

They die primarily because they didn’t have the coverage or the money to pay doctors and thus delayed seeking treatment until it was too late. They don’t get checkups, screenings and other preventive care. That is why uninsured adults are far more likely to be diagnosed with a disease, such as cancer or heart disease, at an advanced stage, which severely reduces their chances of survival.

This isn’t news. Seven years ago, the Institute of Medicine found that approximately 18,000 Americans had died in 2000 because they had no insurance. Using the same methodology combined with Census Bureau estimates of health coverage, the Urban Institute concluded that the incidence of death among the uninsured was enormous. Between 2000 and 2006, the last year of that study, the total number of dead was estimated to have reached 137,000—a body count more than double the number of casualties in the Vietnam War.

<snip>

thank you for posting it

you should do an OP on this very thing.

Which essentially boils down to what is more important, winning our biggest domestic policy initiative or more of the smaller initiatives that will come up in the next few years.

If I had the unlikely choice between a generally conservative party that supported the NHS and a liberal/left party on most issues that didn't - it really would be a hard choice. This is a very crucial issue for me. And it would depend on how right-wing the conservative party was. If they supported the NHS as part of a general moderation of viewpoint, then I'd probably vote for them against the alternative. If they were fascists/ right-wing populists who were using this as 'bait' to gain support for authoritarian and racist policies - clearly not!

However, I don't see how it applies in America. If you had a Republican congressional majority, you *definitely* wouldn't get health care, so how are these alternatives?

it reaches deep into every life.

if you say screw the republicans and pass it with a slim majority,
then suffer some initial setbacks getting it off the ground, thing don't go smooth at first
You leave the party easy prey from the other party and from primary challengers.
weakening the opportunity to fine tune it, increasing the likelihood of a full on repeal

Health care has waited for far too long.

Hell, yes. No thought involved in making that decision.

There just ain't that much difference between the two major parties anymore. Both have frickin sold out.

single payer is, at this point, pure fantasy.

It's a system that is doomed to failure IMHO.

The only reason that single payer is a fantasy is because we the people are too fucking lazy - and too self interested to demand such a humanitarian system - to demand that our elected representatives act in the interests of flesh and blood citizens as opposed to the corporate citizens who finance their campaign warchests. We'd rather rationalize compromise than fight for single payer.

Hats off to those town hall loonies. They may be grossly misinformed greedy selfish pricks but they are putting up the fight that single payer supporters have not.

I'd do it in a heart beat. Besides, the goopers would fuck things up so badly, so quickly, we'd be back in power quick as you can say recession.

Party label really means nothing. You can't lose what you don't have.

So I'm hoping we don't make the same mistake. Pass health care reform.

With all due respect, your question is based on a faulty premise.

Republicans are far to batshit to run anything. I've been paying attention to them too long to believe anything close to both parties are the same or that any further Republiscum majority control "wouldn't be that bad".

If worse comes to worse, I'll take some management skills that aren't devoted to killing the government and turning all control to the moneychangers.

Democrats ain't all gold or anything but if the difference isn't clear to ya then dig up Ray Gun and bring back Cheney and Rummy.

right....