How is it possible to have an honest discussion of health care cost reduction and not include ......

..... single payer in the discussion?

Answer: It Is Not Possible.

Consequently, everything we hear is just so much mental masturbation, obfuscation, redirection, lying, pandering, and hoodwinking.

I am not saying Single Payer or Nothing. I am saying that not discussing it while discussing everything else leaves the best option out of the mix and that serves ONLY the interests of the moneyed.

:kick:

Only a public option that runs as efficiently as Medicare does will provide the insurance vultures with something they've never had: true competition.

That competition will supply the only incentive they've ever had to cut their administrative overhead, now responsible for 30-46% of every health care dollar they take in.

Without a public option, any reform will be purely cosmetic and costs will continue to escalate while profits are maximized by cheating sick people.

The Democrats are pressured to bring about a reform from the left regarding health, so they manufactured a concept of the "public option" (which will cover a measly 10 million people in 10 years) and branded it as an extreme leftist position (with the help of the right-wing). Then, they dust of the old Nixon/Romney reform with this romantic socialized "option" thrown in, and bammo, you have liberals not debating the merits of the reform, but rather the travesty of no reform at all. Not only did they shut out the notion of real optimal reform, they reframed the entire political debate to garner support for the bill that isn't even based on its merits alone. In the end, its all going to become a media/support-fest and the best party will win, the people will lose, and nothing significant will occur. Curtain rolls, put your hands together for applause, and audience exits left, happy.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ --

the power to overturn a "people's" government --

Americans Support Single payer. Why Doesn't Celinda Lake?

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/december/americans_support_si.php

"...Similar strong support for Medicare for All was found the last time health reform was on the top of the nation’s agenda, during the Clinton administration. In 1993, a citizen jury sat for 8 hours a day for five days in Washington, DC before making their choice among the then-leading options for health reform: managed competition (supported by Clinton), medical savings accounts, and single payer. Single payer received 17 out of 24 votes (70 percent). There were 5 votes for Clinton’s plan, and none for medical savings accounts. Focus groups conducted that year by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake reported the same strong support for single payer. “After conducting extensive focus groups on health care, pollster Celinda Lake discovered that the more people are told about the Canadian system, “the higher the support goes.” In contrast, according to Lake, working Americans found the managed competition idea “laughable.” (“It’s Time for a Real Debate on National Health Insurance”)

So, how come Democratic pollster Celinda Lake now claims Americans won’t support single payer, and instead favor a plan that is a variant of managed competition? Because her latest research was brazenly biased. Kip Sullivan explains how and why..."


What Journalists Can Learn from Celinda Lake
By Trudy Lieberman

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/what_journalists_can_learn_fro_1.php

"First there was Frank Luntz. Now, Celinda Lake is trying to do for the Dems what Luntz did for the GOP. Lake, a longtime Democratic strategist, has been hard at work crafting the right words and phrases to persuade the public that Dems really do have their best health care interests in mind. For months, politicians, advocates, and especially the president have talked about “affordable, quality” health care—a Lake-fashioned phrase that has caught on big time. Reporters have repeated these words without providing any context about what they mean—that is, if they mean anything...


In early June, a memo circulated from the Herndon Alliance and Lake Research Partners telling advocacy groups and other interested parties precisely what words they should use to counter Republican messages as health reform’s verbal war begins. The Herndon Alliance, which calls itself a non-partisan coalition, has partnered with some 200 organizations, including former single-payer advocates, think tanks, foundations, advocacy groups, businesses, and health care providers. The Alliance claims to “provide value-added services to partner organizations”—i.e., helping them develop communications strategies. Lake has worked closely with the Alliance in crafting messages its partners can use. She has counseled the Alliance’s partners against using the term “universal coverage.” Maybe that’s why it’s not talked about much anymore. Similarly, she tells activists never to say “Medicare for all.” Instead, they should say “choice of public and private plans.”

...Lake says that frame is “so effective” because it taps into the public’s key expectations for health reform, such as the choice of keeping your current plan and doctor—the president uses that one; affordability (paying less and getting more)—lots of groups are using that one; and finding a uniquely American solution—insurance companies and Sen. Max Baucus have used that one. But wait a minute. Didn’t the phrase “uniquely American solution” surface with Bill Clinton? In the early 1990s, as Clinton began to craft his plan based on managed competition, he framed it as his “uniquely American plan.” How many uniquely American plans can there be? ..."

Costs can be reduced by lesser programs; but that's only because the bar is set so low by the current system. Single-payer would be preferable by far.