Single payer is denied air because it would be wildly popular. So popular they couldn't stop it.

The comment below was linked to at The Sideshow (http://sideshow.me.uk/). Listening to Weiner or Kucinich defend single-payer illustrates the point. It's hard for anyone to lay a glove on them because their case is so strong. Weiner's performance on MSNBC the other day is a good example. One can only wonder where we'd be if the White House had used its considerable resources to go on a crusade for single payer instead of striking deals with health care lobbyists.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/avedon/08191326/#323589

An example of how much people just love their health insurance, also from Montana:

Steve McArthur is a management consultant.

Read self-employed.

That means he has to buy his own insurance, a Blue Cross Blue Shield policy that costs him $584 a month and carries a $10,000 deductible.

On Tuesday morning, he listened for a long time as Missoulians discussed health care reform at a listening session at St. Patrick Hospital sponsored by U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

The hearing ranged broadly over the possibilities for reform, but what clearly resonated for McArthur was something Baucus' chief of staff, Jon Selib, said a couple of times.

Discussing why a single-payer system of health insurance wasn't viable, Selib made reference to the more than 150 million Americans who are covered by some sort of employer-provided health care.

"A lot of people like that," Selib said.

When the time came for questions, McArthur stood up and asked a simple question. Looking across a standing-room-only crowd of about 275, he asked how many were happy with their employer-based health insurance.

Fewer than 10 people raised their hands.

"The number is bogus," McArthur said. "It's not working for 95 percent of us."

McArthur drew resounding applause.

In fact, any mention of single-payer health care insurance brought raucous cheers and clapping. Any other solution to health care reform - including Baucus' "balanced" plan that would create a mix of public and private plans - was received more coolly.

This is why single payer never got a seat at the table. Not because it wasn't politically popular with voters. If that were the case, they would've given it a seat and then ignored it.

The reason it's been denied air everywhere - and why they had to come up with the "public option" buzzword to deny it air even among a lot of progressives - is because it would be wildly popular. So popular, they wouldn't be able to stop it.
BDBlue | 08.19.09 - 4:57 pm | #

The "Centrist Wing" of the Democratic Party says we will just have to settle for LESS than the rest of the civilized World takes for granted.

We need a "Uniquely American" system that protects the profits of the Health Insurance Industry.

The R's are blatantly honest in that support. Can't possible have a public option single payer solution as it would put the insurance companies at an unfair advantage - or worse yet, out of business.

What do they bring to the table anyway? Why should we care? With a public single-payer solution, we have NO need for them. No wonder they are passing money around so freely - their entire future is at stake.

NOW CAN WE????

Sweet.

are you a Husker by any chance? There are several of us here.

http://www.johnrussellforcongress.com/page.asp?PageId=35

John Russell was the Democratic Nominee in Florida's 5th Congressional District in both 2006 and 2008. Russell is a Nationally Certified Acute Care Nurse Practitioner with an MBA in Health Systems Mgt. Russell has fought for a single payer plan for the past 6 years and continues today through his writing, public speaking, debates and video endeavors. Da Lil Kitty!:)

the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies that control
Washington could NEVER allow that to happen!!!


:mad::mad::mad::mad:

The "it's not possible" meme is straight out of the for profit health industry's expensive PR firms, along with "uniquely american system", "incremental change" and "strong public option" whatever that is.

All provide cover for the industry, the politicians and the gatekeepers with good ins. in the upper classes who are looking for a premium price cut out of the deal.

I interviewed the President of Mining Operations
for Atlas Copco several years ago. Atlas Copco
is a non union mining equipment and services
provider with a world wide network of offices and
services depots.

When I asked how Canadian mines could compete when
profits for base metals were as low as 3% and mines
had to operate 24 hrs a day to achieve that.

His answer was that mining companies operating in
Canada had a competitive advantage because they
DID NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE. This
was in spite of the fact that wage rates in mining
are some of the highest in the world

That statement was made by a very conservative, anti
union Dutch mining executive.

Why don't people understand that the US Medical Insurance
Industry represents the highest tax on US productivity.
Far and a way more regressive than any government tax.

It's only about 11 pages long. So eloquent you'll be reduced to tears. A copy should be mailed to every American household.

http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676text


:think:

Is the term "individual". If a person is a citizen, naturalized citizen, legal immigrant, green card migrant, or even a visitor to the country such as student visas, vacationing, etc it is one thing. Providing unlimited care to those that have entered the country illegally, breaking our laws, and in reality should be deported immediately and those that hired and enticed them here to save a dollar thrown in jail for 6 months for every illegal hired, is a non starter for many that may be inclined to give it more attention. I would make a compromise for any single payer advocate. Give me hard term limits on all elected offices (3 terms House, 1 term senate, 10 years on any federal bench including supreme court (I know not an elected office but still very influential)), a strong balanced budget amendment, and real border controls and I would be very inclined to give on single payer.

Before any one attacks me..I am not a troll nor a liberal or a progressive. I use the same screen name as my freerepublic account and do not hide that fact.

but if you prefer 'freeper', which I assume you mean as a derogatory smear, so be it. Nice attack versus merits of my post :)

If it fits.......

You are the one who came here to a Democratic board and broadcast that you visit freep land (but oh, no, you're not a Republicon). Seems to me you are trying to get us to believe freep land does not promote rabid right wing racist attacks on thinking adults. My experience is that freepers are for the most disconnected from reality. The fact that you think you can get intelligent information off that site, makes me wonder what your purpose here is.

you take right wing spin on issues seriously?

Like WMD? Obama's health care will kill grandma/grandpa?

Limbaugh and Global Warming?

I noticed your later post on your positions which I thought were interesting . . .

Agree with you on 1 and 9

2)2nd Amendment - Applies to individuals not gov't sponsored militias

Unfortunately, the Founders included the opening clause . . . which cannot be ignored.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

3)Pro Right to Work

This is an anti-union position, of course. Corporations are organized in every way
possible, subsidized by government -- but labor shouldn't be organized?

4)Free Trade that benefits both partners (as opposed to what we have with China)

ALL of the trade agreements should be overturned -- or the network that has been established
should provide for unionization in these other countries.

IMO, we should return to tariffs to protect our labor/industry . . . and where our "industry"
might be these days in view of 50,000 manufacturing plants having closed down over the past
10 years I'm sure few know.

5) Pro - Life but would heavily regulate, not outlaw abortion

The GOP/Grand Old Patriarchy . . . like its underpinning organized patriarchal religion . . .
is heavily based on oppression and control of women, especially reproduction.

IMO, anyone who wants to force a female to bear a child has fascist instincts.

As for the myth of "late term abortion" it is rare and involves serious problems with the
fetus or health of the mother -- yet, here again, the GOP substituted it's own preferences
over those of the doctor, the pregnant female and her family.

6) ALL of our soldiers should be brought home from every post -- it's time to end 65 years
of Pax American/American imperialism.

7) Term limits for all offices including Supreme Court

IMO, 15 years/20 years is more than enough time for any Judge to influence issues.
I think this would be a good subject for a thread here. Why don't you consider doing that
after Labor Day, perhaps? Sotomayer will be on the bench around then -- October, I think.
We should also have gender balance laws for all public offices.

8) Balanced budget Amendment with flat tax or National Sales Tax

The GOP/right wing are the budget busters . . . and the problem with such an amendment
is that "national security/wars" will always overcome any such amendment.

We need to return to progressive taxation and re-regulation of capitalism.

And -- It is the GOP wars which have bankrupted our Treasury --

What we do need is to prevent any further borrowing from Social Security Trust Funds which
run $250 BILLION every year in SURPLUS. That surplus has been raised to create a slush fund
for Bush I and II -- he paid for his tax cuts for the elite from that surplus -- and the
burden of the additional FICA fell on the shoulders of the poor and the middle classes.
We should raise the ceiling substantially.

10) End practice of withholding federal funding to force states to accept federal regulations

This has worked both ways . . . the honorable use of this kind of economic force was to move
Southern states to ending Segregation, for one. Though I'm not sure if the South has yet set
women free!?

The right-wing has used these restrictions less honorably ... especially in regard to reproductive
freedom all over the globe.

11) Common Sense conservation and mineral exploration in US not debilitating regulations and false Cap-Trade

The People have to take back control of our natural resources from private interests which
exploit and destroy nature. We have capitalistic exploitation to thank for Global Warming, for one.
Ozone hole, for another. And general/deadly pollution of our planet -- water, oceans, air.

12)Strong border security and deportation on all illegal aliens...end anchor baby practice

I think we should leave FENCES and WALLS to fascist governments . . .
PLUS this idea of a fence is an environmental hazard -- and more of a danger to us than to anyone
else. But . . . very "Dobbs" of you!

13) Tort reform and penalties for frivolous lawsuits

This is another right wing position . . . and something you should bring up here.
Don't have time right now -- but it is obvious that a lot of corporate money has gone
into moving opinion against consumer interests.

So am I a conservative a flaming liberal and don't realize it or a moderate?

Actually, IMO, you have a right wing slant on most of these issues ....
The question is .... how much information you have on these issues and whether your opinion
would change on any of them, if, for instance, you had a medical bill large enough to cause
bankruptcy? Car manufacturers have been responsible for faulty cars which have done a lot
of damage -- Jeep Wrangler owner had two legs amputated when another car drove thru a STOP
sign and his own car leaked brake fluid. A Chrysler Jeep Grand Cherokee self-shifted from
park into reverse and ran over a LA student causing extensive damage to his spine and internal
organs. He faces a life time of further surgeries as his back deteriorates due to the injuries.

on freerepublic. I read many websites including powerlineblog, FR, DU, DailyKos, CNN, Fox, BBC, etc. If you must know my stances I can put them here and you can call me a raging neo-Nazi horse's ass for all I care. Here is the only post that I have made on FR...judge for yourself:

I have often questioned if under current societal and other definitions if I would qualify as a Conservative. I have considered myself a Conservative most of my life but the more I look at myself I am not sure if the label even fits anymore even taking into account the broad definition. Here are some stances on issues I take and would like to see feed back on where I would rank as a conservative...

1) Death Penalty - against it but in favor of life with no parole in capital cases

2)2nd Amendment - Applies to individuals not gov't sponsored militias

3)Pro Right to Work

4)Free Trade that benefits both partners (as opposed to what we have with China)

5) Pro - Life but would heavily regulate, not outlaw abortion

6) Strong national defense but would scale back deployments in Europe, Asia, etc (ie reduce or eliminate troops in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc...it's time they paid for their own defense)

7) Term limits for all offices including Supreme Court

8) Balanced budget Amendment with flat tax or National Sales Tax

9) Decriminalize most narcotics---regulate like alcohol and tobacco

10) End practice of withholding federal funding to force states to accept federal regulations

11) Common Sense conservation and mineral exploration in US not debilitating regulations and false Cap-Trade

12)Strong border security and deportation on all illegal aliens...end anchor baby practice

13) Tort reform and penalties for frivolous lawsuits

14) And the biggie--health care reform--I don't think the reform ideas are the panacea the left claims it will be but not completely convinced it is the intrinsic evil many on the right make it out to be. Health insurance reform that prevents companies from denying coverage to people that have paid in good faith and other measures are needed to rein in cost. I think that the idea of allowing states to try out different measures as a lab to see what works best may be a solid course.

So am I a conservative a flaming liberal and don't realize it or a moderate?

First, a question: Exactly which free trade policies in place now have benefited American workers?

As to #3: According to the US Bureau of Labor statistics in 2006 earns $7,131 per year less in right to work states than in free trading states ($30,656 vs. 37,787). Examining median incomes for the years 2002-2004 only one of the top ten states in median income is a right to work state. Of the 22 states with right to work laws, 18 of them fall into the bottom half of the country in median income and six of them fall into the bottom ten. Right to work is part of the war on the working class.

7) Term limits are a limit on people's rights to elect the representatives of their choice. The true answer to entrenched power is public financing of campaigns to nullify the impact of campaign contributions which have our representatives voting with their wealthy contributors to the general detriment of the rest of us.

8) Flat tax and sales tax are regressive taxes that fall more heavily on workers and the poor (who are nowadays often the same people). Progressive taxation is the only way to prevent the wealth of a country from becoming concentrated into the hands of a smaller and smaller minority of wealth elites at the top. Recent reports show the disparity in wealth is now greater than it was the year before we entered the great depression.

13) Tort reform: the states who have enacted tort reform laws have seen no reduction in costs. Missouri enacted very aggressive tort reform laws and their health care costs have risen at the same rate as the rest of the country. Texas enacted limits on malpractice damages in 2003 and experienced a steep rise in health insurance premiums and medical costs. Medicare spending rose 24% in the 3 years after enacting the cap of $250,000 on punitive damages. McAllen, TX is the second most expensive health care markets in the country. Lawsuits have decreased to almost zero. What is seen is doctors in the area who are heavily invested in medical technology, imaging, and surgery centers. They order massive amounts of testing and procedures because they profit from these practices. The profit motive is what runs our costs for health care up in this country. The insurance companies have not lowered the premiums in areas where tort reform was enacted. Now, they get to charge outrageous premiums knowing they can keep most of the money for executive salaries and shareholder dividends.

First off let me say thanks and I appreciate your points.

When I say free trade I mean for lack of a better term equal trade. Is it a perfect world no. But allowing countries that essentially use slave labor to dump their products into our country at a cost no civilized country can compete with is wrong. Also erecting trade barriers against our goods to protect home industries is wrong. We have exported a majority of our middle class supporting jobs to countries that have no regard for their workers at the expense of ours. Do I have all the answers...no but the current trade imbalance is unsustainable.

As a proponent of right to work I do not mean being anti-Union. In a state both can co exist and do. As far as wage discrepancies take a look at a heavily unionized state (CA or MI) versus right to work states (GA or my own state SC). Yes wages are lower here than in MI or CA. On the flip side of that argument the cost of living is many times lower than in either of those states. Is it across the board, of course not. I come from a state with a long history of breaking unions be they the country or organized labor. It does color my thinking which I fully admit. Would I personally join a union, probably not but I don't begrudge you the right to join and participate in one if you wish.

Term limits are an acceptable practice which is good enough for the President is good enough for Reps and Senators. I completely agree with publicly financed campaigns. State voting laws already act to limit your choices for representation which has basically locked this country into a two party system. We hurt ourselves with this. As a member of the left imagine having a choice between progressives like Kucinich, Dean, or other in a national election against Obama or Clinton and a right or center right slate of candidates. Now we only really have two choices since independents are for all intents and purpose locked out of the process.

If I was to use a flat tax (not my first choice) there would have to be a major correlation of spending cuts and income limits it would affect. Just for mathematical arguments say the flat tax would not apply to those under 25 and only begins at those making 50,000 and up. The national sales tax which I prefer would fall across the spectrum and I would like to see it not apply to 'essentials' ie grocery.

As far as Tort Reform the basis of this is to force some of the cost back on those that make a career out of lawsuits. Common sense awards instead of unlimited awards. Is there a silver bullet answer for this...there never is.

Some valid points made

Equal trade versus free trade? I like it. Those of us on the left were very unhappy that NAFTA went through with no reform to labor policies in other countries.

While it is true that some income differences between right to work and union states it does not, as you point out, account for all the difference. I, for instance, live in a state with a fairly high cost of living and a very low median income. I have now lived in 3 right to work states and no unionized states and have found it difficult to survive financially. And I am generally way above the median income for those states. I lived in one city where there was one union for nurses. It was not even my employer. The LPN's at a local hospital were unionized with the kitchen and housekeeping staff. I am an RN. Whenever the union would renegotiate the contract with their employees and the LPN's got a raise, the RN's (who were not unionized) would get a raise. Withing 3 months, every time, every hospital in town would increase nurse's wages in order to keep the entire, inadequate number of nurses in town from defecting for higher pay. The presence of that one union benefited every nurse in that city. I have since lived in 4 other cities in 2 other states and have found, without the mitigating presence of any unionized nurses, the pay stagnant and inadequate and the work loads increasing all the time. I believe unions in an area benefit all workers. Companies in right to work states are able to make it much harder for their workers to organize. I don't think people should be forced into unions but I don't think it should require Herculean efforts to organize, either.

Term limits for Presidents has not mitigated the problem of the 2 party system in presidential elections. I believe public financing would solve the problems people think would be solved by term limits without limiting the citizens' right to re-elect the person of their choice. The 22nd amendment just became law in 1951. Our country lived most of its history without it and I can't see where we benefited much from it.

I appreciate your idea of exempting lower income households from the federal flat tax but I believe those who have looked at the idea seriously have found that the tax would be much higher than what proponents have believed. Some years ago there were those proposing we could flat tax everyone at 10%. When the numbers were actually worked up seriously it would have been 17%. It would be much higher now. And it would still result in the problem of concentrating the wealth in an ever shrinking number of people. It is my belief that a national sales tax would have the same effect. Any tax that falls more heavily on those with less income will, eventually, lead to oligarchy. We are not far from oligarchy now. This works well for those at the top but history reveals that when the disparities between haves and have nots reach a certain level, revolution generally ensues. Not that I think we couldn't use one but I don't think we want the disruption and loss of life that would involve.

I understand your desire to see those that make a living off lawsuits pay but I don't think most understand the principles behind punitive damages. First, of course, is actual damages. If something you or your product did damaged someone to the point they could no longer earn a living they are due back the compensation they lost as the result of that. Punitive damages are meant to correct the behavior of the offending entity. Studies have shown that unless the damages are high enough to actually be felt by the person or company that is culpable, the behavior will not change. As to frivolous lawsuits, I would encourage everyone who believes this to think of a nice, frivolous lawsuit and go out and find an attorney to take it. I have not found people have an easy time shopping a lawsuit with merit, let alone frivolous ones. One example: I had an uncle with Parkinson's disease. He suffered massive depression as people with Parkinson's disease often do. He was admitted to the psychiatric floor of a hospital for depression and was considered a suicide risk. Standard practice, in these cases, is to place the patient on 1 to 1 observation or 15 minute checks. His mobility, due to the Parkinson's, was poor. It took him a lot of time just to shuffle across a ten foot room. The day after he was admitted, he was found in his room where he had hung himself with the cable from the television which was mounted from the ceiling. This meant he had to get across the room with a chair, climb up on the chair, disconnect the cable, make a noose, and hang himself. A clear cut case of neglect, I would think. And this was long before tort reform. My aunt met with close to a dozen attorneys and not one felt the case was worth taking. Attorneys are not in the business of taking cases they don't think they have a pretty clear shot at winning. Most of what we hear about frivolous lawsuits are apocryphal stories that can't be backed up. Actual studies of lawsuits and damage awards show no significant increase in the number of lawsuits or the percentages of the amounts of the awards in past decades. We are all aware of the Pinto situation where there was a design flaw in the Pinto which caused the gas tank to ignite in crashes. Ford Motor company was well aware of it. People were severely burned and quite a few died in these crashes. After a cost-benefit analysis, it was decided it was cheaper to pay off the number of lawsuits than to fix the flaw. As an RN since before the days of for profit hospitals I can attest that I saw this same attitude permeate the hospital industry after the for profits took over. In days gone by I generally got some results when I went to a hospital administrator with concerns over short staffing. Not because they were all altruistic in those days but they did fear lawsuits over medical errors. After the bean counters began to rule the world the best I could get was a shrug. It was clear to me they felt paying a few wrongful death suits would be cheaper than hiring enough nurses to do the job safely. Corporations have no conscience. They exist solely for the purpose of making a profit. If they need to provide adequate service or products to do this they will. Without a legal system that protects consumers and holds them accountable their employees and customers are at risk. The threat of real punitive damages is the only protection we have against these behemoths.

I have already gotten long winded but these are not simple issues with short answers. I would like to note that people with the simplistic answers never consider the unintended consequences. I recently saw an excellent example of this. The state in which I now reside decided years ago to have no tax on business in the state. The thinking is obvious-it would attract business and create jobs. Great! We tend to be a relatively poor state and wages are low here. Great! Business should love it, right? Last week's report on the states considered best for doing business had us listed the 4th worst state in which to do business. The reasons? Our work force is unskilled and under educated. I'm sure you can see the cause and effect here. Without any tax on business and a low paid work force the money for training and education has not been here. Hence, the 4th worst place in the country to do business.

The stupidity of this post, that somehow if we deny 'non citizens' access to health care we will save money, is incredible. Fella, you PAY for the uninsured. Unless you want to try to argue that we should turn people away at the ER. In which case you ARE a Freeper.

with strong border control and dealing with those here now.

If you would, well then you're a freeper. Probably a racist too.

IF not then you're planning to pay for the uninsured? How?

First off we don't turn away from ERs now so wouldn't see why we would after single payer. My contention is that if you want a compromise to get single payer that would/could possibly bring over a broader support, then immigration reform that does more than legalize 12 million people would be something that would entice more than a few from the right. That is the whole key to compromise, one side gives something to get something. I am not completely opposed to single payer. I just believe that other problems need to be addressed to make it a viable option.

Their extortion doesn't involve illegal immigrants.

for the insurance industry you are barking up the wrong tree. The same can be said for any special interest group on the left or right. My point is simply give a win to one side to gain a win for your side. It is the same reason I believe in strong term limits to try and reduce influence in DC by industry shills and paid for lobbyist. Let us also honestly admit that as soon as the first elected official was created there was a special interest shill in his ear immediately. Until the people find a way to limit this while maintaining freedom of speech it will always be a problem.

I'll like you, freelance on several different sites. I look at Drudge in disgust, check out Political, never listen to Fox News, but occasionally look at their website, because I am interested in seeing what the other side is saying and getting a more rounded view.

While other's might be quick to judge you, I think that perhaps you are looking at the other side, intelligently, and getting a more rounded view too.

Some people. too many people get so stuck in their ways, that they stop being curious about other points of view.

If that's what you are doing, investigating and considering what other's might say or think...

then I congratulate you for coming here for a look.

problem eating at a restaurant or sitting beside a person in a movie theater with TB(insert any transmittable disease) who can't get it treated because they don't have access to health care. That is what you are saying. DO NOT treat sick people with MY tax dollars EVEN IF I can get sick by being close to them. NOOOOOOO, we wouldn't want that would we?

Why not, instead, we take care of HUMAN BEINGS. We have enough money to spend TRILLIONS on unnecessary wars, but not enough to take care of basic human needs? BS

They should be treated humanely and with compassion and sent back to there various countries of origin if they are not here legally. Should they have the same rights and privileges as an American citizen, no. Why is this such a sticking point. I know that many on here are open borders and are probably unconcerned about national sovereignty. I get that. As far as needless wars see my response above dealing with our misguided commitments overseas.

Providing unlimited care to those that have entered the country illegally.....

The way you stop illegal immigration is to go after the big corporations and their CEO's. You start putting CEOs in jail for hiring illegals and the problem diminishes to almost zero.

And no, I am not for open boarders. But, I do understand WHY they are here and never demonize them (not that you did).

Would you consider amnesty for illegals that are already here if our government were to become more effective
at stopping illegal immigration at the point of entry? Of course, we'll never be able to stop it all, so for the sake
of argument, let's say that "stopping illegal immigration" would mean reducing illegal entry to 10% of what it is today.

legitimizing those here illegally. With unemployment what it is today to say there are not people that can and will fill jobs is ludicrous on its face. Also border controls are only a part of the equation. As long as we wink and nod at everything from corporations to small businesses hiring illegals, paying them under the table thus avoiding paying taxes from them and their employees the demand will always be there. Strict penalties against these people, who IMHO are no better than plantation slave owners and New England sweat shop owners of the 19th century, is where it has to start. Once these controls are in place, border security and penalties for those that hire them, then we can address those hear one way or the other. Stopping it completely is at best a pipe dream but 10% would be a worthy goal.

In fact, the border situation continued to fester and probably grew worse in the two decades after the amnesty was given. The amnesty was only sold with the idea that the border would actually be enforced. In short, it was billed as a one-shot-only deal. To ask Americans to do the same thing again might meet the definition of insanity given the current election system in place that favors wealthy individuals at the expense of poor ones.

Whether you like it or not, because you wouldn't control your daughter. This applies to your son if that applies as well.

Or, they may spread some noxious, yet easily controlled disease throughout the population. Health of Society is not about ignoring the ones that need it. It's about keeping Society healthy, despite anomalies like Illegal Immigrants like you describe.

Honestly, how can people like you even think without diving into such infantile thoughts that Illegal Immigrants are not people like you or me. We have seen what happens when we neglect our own workers and focus on overseas cheap labor. One side loses every time.

You have probably never seen the conditions that McCain taunted people with when he offered $50.00 an hour to pick lettuce for a season. He said, and I quote "You can't Handle It", but he made a mistake, he really meant 5.00 hour. At fifty bucks an hour, that would have related to $500.00 per day, nearly every day, for 4 months, for a total of 500*120=$60,000. Whereas, he meant 50 per day, and 6,000 dollars.

Good luck paying your mortgage, buying your food, and refueling your care on that...

It's hard to imagine that you can be so shallow minded, self centered, and disconnected to reality that stupid ideas such as yours can exist without driving you to drink or insanity.

Wake the fuck up buddy, and that's just some friendly advice.

I've heard them say that at least a dozen times . . . how about you?

Meanwhile, let's cut the BS that "illegals" are doing harm to our country --
First, it is the right wing elites who have enticed and encouraged illegals in
order to cover jobs they don't want to raise wages on --

Further, they also pay into our Social Security and there are unclaimed billions which
they will never collect.

Additionally, keep in mind that this is a country we stole from Mexicans and Native Americans
through precedent setting violence -- something most Americans understand.

OTOH, every Democrat does make clear that we do treat anyone who comes to an Emergency Room --
which is the moral and wise thing to do.

As for term limits, that ruse was one of the primary ways that the GOP took control of Congress
in '94 . . . you may remember their "Contract ON America"?

Granted undesirable incumbents are often difficult to unseat, but mainly because they are
supported by huge amounts of corporate money. Though the CIA found it easy enough to finance
the opponents of popular Democrats -- like Frank Church -- whom they desperately wanted to unseat.

The CIA over decades was also funding right wing Senators and Representatives with money which came
from ever kind of right wing source, including the KKK and Nazis-!
Sen. Strom Thurmond and Rep. Gerry Ford are two of the names mentioned -- there were many others.

Rather, I think we should strike gender balance rules -- and even out the Supreme Court in that
regard.

I don't think anyone is waiting around for you to "give" on single payer!

And . . . why are you joined with the folks at Freerepublic if you're not a freep?

And PS . . . let me ask you -- do you recognize the inherent violence and overtones of intimidation
in the newly organized GOP-anti-health-care protests?

Do you wonder why there seems to be such a strong connection between the anti-health care issue
and guns . . . ?

In fact, quite a violent connection between all three of the GOP/NRA, GOP/"pro-life" murderers --
and GOP/fascist rallies against health care reform?

At least ask your Representative to vote for it "symbolically" (if they argue it can't pass).

One can only wonder where we'd be if the White House had used its considerable resources to go on a crusade for single payer instead of striking deals with health care lobbyists.

I say, then so many of us would not all be

:banghead:

And what not.

include things like preventative and complementary medicines/therapies.

saying things like "Europeans and Canadians come to the U.S. for health care by the millions." "No one over 65 gets cancer treatment in those countries." "You lie around for hours on a gurney if you're having a heart attack." "Their doctors all come here because their incomes are so low."

Look at the online comments in the New York Times articles on health care, of which there have been several in the past few days. They are overwhelmingly in favor of single payer, especially if the writer has experienced health care in another Western country.

But fewer than 1 in 5 Americans has a passport. They don't even cross borders when they live near them.

Just an example: My father's hometown is three miles from the Canadian border. A new sixth grade teacher came to town and asked her students who many of them had been to Canada. Only three kids out of twenty-five had. The teacher immediately phoned the sixth grade (sorry, grade six) teacher in the closest town on the Canadian side and arranged exchange visits.

It's EASY to fool people who haven't been around. One local wingnut kept writing in online comment columns that Europe could have universal health care because it didn't have any immigrants. Tell that to anyone who has been to Europe--or even followed international news--lately, and they burst out laughing.

They've obviously never ridden the Metro in Paris.

Or visited Brighton or Picadilly in Britain.

Most of the people you talk about have never been out of their own state!

a watered down public option and even a co-op socialized medicine. Single payer will never happen until the health care system collapses. Even then I'm not so sure. As we've learned it really doesn't matter what the people want since a small minority funded by heath care inc. can stir enough shit to swat it down. It was easy in '92 and it's still easy.

if over 60% of all bankruptcies are due to medical debt then it's a critical problem. How many homes have foreclosed due to medical debt? How many Americans-insured or uninsured-die or become disabled because they can't afford treatment or the co-pays and deductibles? Health care costs are a much bigger threat to America than terrorism and already effects millions more Americans, yet we spend a fraction of the budget on health care that we do on the military. It doesn't work, and we'll soon be like Mexico if this BS continues.

That's the :wtf: part. It tells you all you need to know about who's working for who.

The money running from the pipelines of the corporations to the pockets of the pols. Single payer would slow the oceans of money (being ripped off from the citizen/consumer) to a trickle.

The goal is not majorities, the goal is not to govern, the goal is not to work for the benefit of the citizens and the financial stability of the country - the goal is MONEY.

it is also to keep the right wing funders of the "grass roots" disruptions of townhalls, that managed to drive people on Medicare to shout down "government health care," from pouring millions into campaigns against them.

The same astroturf bullying is already starting against attempts to curb US carbon emissions. Thanks to Rachel Maddow for showing examples on her show.

Since the anti-socialist healthcare storms were perpetrated even after Democrats left the best plan off the table and then kept on compromising--

that could show them that either they turn Blue Dog on all the critical economic issues that challenge corporate America so as not to be attacked by these ruthless right wing PR firms

or they band together to reintroduce the best plan-- Single Payer along the lines of HR676-- knowing it will give Americans the health security they long for and build public loyalty to the Democrats that is deep enough to resist the next two or three right wing storms in the wings.

Yes, I dearly wish they'd started with the best. With the President introducing Single Payer by acknowledging that our current system is morally unsustainable as is-- millions uninsured, millions more bankrupt paying medical bills, even with insurance-- and Single Payer seems to be the best way to address those problems. Any alternatives need to show us how they can beat Single Payer-- cover everyone at a lower cost. That is the bottom line.

The President could even say that in order to help the for-profit health insurance providers compete, we can introduce some regulations they all must follow so none have an unfair advantage by limiting care. And keep them available as options to those who like their private healthcare. We will let the public choose the private option and that will give those companies the change to adapt their plans to covering more people and adjusting their profit projections to more reasonable levels.

Very sad that our whole discussion has been geared more toward-- how on earth can we help the private sector retain its market share when the people are desperate for health care. How can we protect the private profit-driven sector from "unfair" competition from the government-financed plans.

Wish the Democrats could come out and acknowledge that we have protected the profit-driven system for over ten years since our people last cried out for help. They told us they could do better every time. And every time the costs of coverage skyrocketed and more people were left uninsured.

Protecting the private sector? Giving them "fair" competition-- been there, done that, got millions more desperate people now.

to the right wing PR firms that can gin up all these "regular folk" into raging against reform at the town halls.

Nice little racket. Lots of different types of vultures are standing by, ready to pay for that "genuine grass roots" hysteria for hire.

I find it incredible that these drones claim they are "Average Folk" then spew out, perfect talking points that one would have had to conjure up in smoke filled room while tripping on LSD. Any sane person would never in their lives actually come to the conclusions that they commonly do if they followed the logical path of reasoning based on factual review.

They are becoming so easy to spot in a crowd of stupid, dumb Americans that they only hurt themselves, yet the Media gobbles it up, throws a little garnish and flair on it, and then serves it up as the main course.

This whole Freedom of Speech thing has been corrupted by both the Government and the Corporations to be one big Propoaganda machine. The only means of control is due to the huge sums of money needed to pay off the Media gatekeepers, which keeps the honest, yet poor lower classes out of the conversation, while the Government and Corporate interests can print money out of thin air to get anything they want broadcast to the Country.

The only way America can survive is to remove the MSM from the standard pablum served to Americans everyday. People need to turn off the Tube, and do their own research on everything. I do this 100% everyday. It's a full time job sifting through the 80% Bullshit to get to the 20% relevant information. The majority of American struggle just to make a decent living wage, and don't have the energy, time, or perserverance to take this path, but it is one of the only ways I see that we can starve the Corporations by not buying their Propaganda so easily.

An analogy to this comes from my experience as a Farmer. Today, the majority of our crops are grown in Monocultures. This means that hundreds of acres consist of nothing other than the crop, such as corn, rice, apples, peaches, walnuts, pumpkins, etc.. Monoculture help during the harvest immnsely, but there is a price, oh yes, there is always a price.

While monoculture assist in uniformity of the crop and the culture applied during the growing season, it basically lays out a smorgasboard for insects. They can chew on one leaf, then without taking flight, walk over the the next plant. The proximity allows the insects to use very little energy to consume an entire crop. The modern farmer relies of pesticides to control the explosive growth in insects that monocrops provide.

I chose to research and follow the old ways of Agroforestry. I began to create more diversity on my farm, and I never plant monocrops. I plant deffernet species of crops mixed together, and it has a interesting effect. First of all, the bugs can't just walk from plant to plant anymore. They have to physically figure out a way to get from one plant to another. This means that the insect is expending time and energy to move to other food sources. This reduces the amount of physical reserves of food the insect has, and in general weakens them ever so slighty. In other words, I make it Harder for the bugs to infest my crops. It's totally passive on my part, and having the intercrop will sometimes provide the only barrier and pest management I will ever need in a season. The plants that become infested, tend to remain isolated, and I can deal with it on an individual basis, eaither by hand, or by setting the chickens loose on them.

So how does this affect American Media? Well, Americans have slowly and inexoribly been turned into a monocrop, easily influenced and devoured by the Media Bugs. The reliance on TV is the main mechanism for Monocropping the Social psyche. You can see this on the big broadcasters, they will all parrot the same story, over and over and over again, regardless of what station you watch.

The only thing we can do is make it more expensive for the media bug to spread and invade. It DOES work. The bug works on food, the Media works on Money. Reduse the food, or make it harder to come by, and the bug suffers. The same will work with the Media, until it is fully taken over by the Government, and propped up for the sole purpose of propaganda, which is not far from what we have today.

They've run tons of lying sound-bytes unchallenged for a long time. I'm glad we have a few token liberal shows left on TV to point out the right wing PR firms inflaming people to storm the town halls.

Another example of media control being in right wing hands is how little coverage has been given to the Attorney General's office antitrust division going after Big Agra. (Link to that discussion below.) But maybe that is a good thing-- don't want right wing PR groups to create more storm troops. We need agricultural diversity urgently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8602763&mesg_id=8602763

There's money on both sides of the coin.

would go up near that much with "socialized" medicine.

In other words, that man would have to spend $17,008 of his own money before receiving ANY benefit from the insurance that he's paying so much for.

Unless he has some chronic condition that requires expensive meds or monitoring, he'd be better off gambling against a serious illness.

..There is NO way it will pass in the Senate despite whatever public opinion and reasoning there is for it. I too want single payer but given the legislative institutions we have (senate and disproportionate representation) it won't happen in a single bill that radically reforms our health plan. The public option stealth model is the only way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6352945

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061902334.html

Dead during the midterms at least.

But they know this.

Gte them the fuck out and get people in that aren't bought. Good luck with that...

And what 20-something would ever want or need health insurance? I mean, everyone is guaranteed to see their 30th birthday in perfect health. What this country needs is to extend that "indestructable" attitude to 30-somethings, 40-somethings, all the way to 100-somethings. With that kind of resolve no one would ever get sick or have an accident!

It's seems like a very expensive tax between the premiums and deductibles. We are paying more now, but try to tell that to the morons at the town halls and their "astro turf" masters. If single payer goes through then even if taxes go up, it could not possibly be anywhere near what most who are paying for insurance currently have to pay.

x(

I have yet to see a single poll, done by anyone, as to what type of healthcare people prefer. Not even that easy to do, unscientific choice poll that CNN does sometimes. None. There is a stink here, and I think I smell a rat.

as does single payer.

then you know it is a good bill written by Congress critters. When a bill is over a 1,000 pages, open to misinterpretation without a law degree and difficult to follow, then you know lobbyist have written it and it is a very bad bill.

clothing won't have that. They work for the Insurance companies and Big Pharma, not for us.

... a two party system that's intended to stave off genuine democratic interference won't have it.

once again, rather than providing the most efficient system to a desperate population.

Rather than addressing the moral disgrace of leaving 47 million uninsured and millions more bankrupt due to medical bills even when they have insurance

our legislators are once again most concerned about -- Golly Gee, how will the private sector be able to compete?

We did that last time. They told us they could do better. We kept the best plans for the public off the table-- no VA style socialist care for all; no public-private mix like Medicare or Single Payer for all. And what did we get-- continued escalation of profits, reduction of services and millions more joined the ranks of the uninsured.

Even with CEOs apparently brilliant enough to earn annual salaries of $10 million plus, those precious Pay-to-Play healthcare companies just couldn't figure out how to compete in ways that served the damn clients. Instead, they figured out how to use their profits to stir up dangerous anger and hatred and get a desperate fringe to storm town hall meetings and shout down socialized medicine.

We protected the for-profit companies in the last round and what did we get for it? Better service? Lower prices? No. We got fewer services at higher prices and dangerous bullying.

When do we say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH and go ahead with Single Payer? When do we gather the courage to say Sorry Pals, we will be offering Single Payer as our public option. We will open up Medicare to all.

I am glad I opted for law school instead of medical school. No-one will be forcing me to provide my services pro-bono. That will remain my decision for now. This legislation is wrong on so many levels. I am utterly amazed anyone could read it and still support it.

on how and where HR676 is wrong.

the doctors will get paid, and not measly pennies. You are misinformed or blatantly stupid.

No insurance company telling the MD and patient that they can't have/order a test/procedure, etc. No surprise charges. The MD orders the test or procedure, the patient has it done , and the government pays. Simple.

I hate to tell you this but, The government has no money. It is our money not the government. You could try being honest and say..."The MD orders the tests or procedure, the patient has it done, and then WE pay. Simple"

or is your "logic" so dull that you don't realize that when a person who goes to the ER and has no insurance, that we are already paying for their care because someone has to pay. It's much more expensive this way and cost controls are almost non-existant.

be honest with yourself. The only reason you don't like this is because we socialist-loving-obama-supporting-liberals are for it!

why don't you go ahead and post the part where doctors are forced to provide their services pro-bono?

Your two inane posts, along with your inability to defend your positions ( "..wrong on so many levels"? And you can't give us a single example) had me pretty much convinced that you had landed here by mistake. Then, when I located your third, most recent comment in an OP about rising ocean temperatures, I knew I was right:

"I am glad

that the ocean is warming up. It was the coldest July ever recorded for the state of Connecticut. At least the fish are having a summer."

The dead giveaway was your recurring, sophomoric, condescending use of "I am glad..." as an intro...........


YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE ON TWITTER! RIGHT?


:rofl:

I am glad I opted for law school instead of medical school.
No-one will be forcing me to provide my services pro-bono.

I'm sure all your otherwise potential patients are, too. The skill sets are hardly interchangeable. And about the only common motivation I can see is a desire to make money.

Yes, for all those years I practised law up here in Canada, earning great wads of cash from my indigent refugee clients and legal aid, my friends who went to medical school were slaving away for free under the dreaded single public payer health insurance scheme.

Hell, I used to take them out for burgers once in a while, just so they wouldn't starve.

Clearly, with your keen reading comprehension and sagacious depth of the issues, you will ace the bar without any trouble. ;)

6 degrees of separation..... how to spread this word......

FACEBOOK.... MYSPACE.... EMAIL FRIENDS LISTS....

tell your friends to:

1) SIGN THE PETITION AT FIREDOGLAKE.COM

2) WRITE THEIR OPINION TO SENATOR.GOV

3) WRITE THEIR OPINION TO WHITEHOUSE.GOV

------- and here is MY opinion...... I AM A SINGLE ISSUE DEMOCRAT ON THIS... SUPPORT SINGLE PAYER OR LOSE MY VOTE FOR 4 YEARS.....
NOT JUST YOU.... for president.... for senate.... for congress.... for house... for STATE offices....
IF THE DEMOCRATS WANT MY SUPPORT... i better hear a lot of LOUD VOICES

BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT A POLITICIAN FIRST JOB IS TO GET REELECTED........

We need a mechanism, that doesnt smell like a tax, that would shift that money now designated from emps, to fund new system. Unless we can capture those funds, single is no go. HOW HOW HOW to capture those funds!

those funds, but it would require doing things that would upset the corporate apple cart. It should start with public campaign financing. There is also rolling back the Bu$h tax cuts to the wealthy. That should help to pay for it. Also, there are provisions in HR676 for cutting the cost of healthcare down significantly. We supposedly have a lot of intelligent and capable people in office who are supposed to be representing us. You mean to tell me that not one of them can come up with a way to institute a single payer or universal health care system? How was Canada able to do it? Where there is a will, there is a way, but there has to be a will first and that is what is missing from our reps on this issue.

AS with all the lying fucks, republicans are there to spend every dime that could otherwise be designated to social welfare. All the while branding us all as tax and spend.

I think it's more likely a stalking horse designed to divide and conquer progressives and draw attention away from single-payer.

A public option would force the government to compete on private industry's terms. Government would lose. Private insurance would have carte blanche to cherry-pick all the healthiest patients. The Feds would be left with the sickest. The health system would be even more convoluted and complex. Meanwhile, Congress would starve the program of funding and point to its failure as proof that the government can't manage health care. In order to stay solvent, the public option would be forced to become every bit as draconic as private insurance.

Single-payer would save money, vastly simplify the process of going to the doctor, and, most of all, place an emphasis on wellness and care, not competition and profit.

a public option that is still insurance companies offering services or the government offering a form of Medicare (govt. insurance)?

They are not going to offer us a compromise meant to do anything else but discourage any other action.

If we don't get an effective public option out of this, but say, some half-assed program that doesn't work, Conservatives will then be able to use it as a prime example of how government doesn't work. With Conservatives, they will literally win if its bad plan.

Plus, what about discouragement? Look at the trouble this is taking. If we get a plan that's a failure, will we ever begin to get up the motivation and focus we are getting now? Isn't it more likely to make us give up on the political system, rather than reforming it so that it can do something effective.

Conservatives are in decline right now. It appeals politically to a shrinking demographic that has no hope of recovery. They may bring Obama's popularity down to 42 percent, but let them find a conservative candidate with a popularity above 38 percent. So, politically, we have a lot of room to work with.

However, it is becoming clearer that our party itself needs to be reformed. Look at the Congressional Leadership and the excuses it has been giving, and how long it has been giving them:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/19/obama/index.html

We are at the point where we cannot stop.

Their response to single-payer surprised even cynical me.

I always assumed they'd give single-payer a seat at the table and then marginalize it completely -- kind of like how DK is typically treated in debates. I truly couldn't have predicted that they would shut it out so brazenly. They clearly were terrified by Medicare for All and didn't want to take even the slightest risk that it would gain traction.

Levi Johnston's mom cops plea: addiction blamed on no health insurance

By GottaLaff





Hey Chuck Grassley, et al. Look what a health care crisis can do:

The mother of the man former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol had planned on marrying has reached a plea deal in her drug case.

Sherry Johnston pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of possession with intent to deliver the painkiller OxyContin. Five other felony counts were dropped.
I feel sorry for her, and I hope she gets treatment for her problem. However, I can't help but point and laugh a teeny tiny bit at this next part:

"That's pretty," Johnston said as a state trooper's pink handcuffs were placed around her wrists.
Okay, fun time over. Let's get to something that will most likely get overlooked elsewhere:

Although Johnston could receive 20 years in prison, her attorney and prosecutors agreed to a five-year sentence, with two years suspended, Butler said, considering the small quantities of drugs involved. <...>

Sherry Johnston has two pain pumps implanted in her body to deliver medication because she suffers a rare condition involving scurvy and chronic pelvic pain from prior medical surgeries, Butler said. She was receiving professional pain relief treatment but the problems arose when her insurer refused to pay for the medication, Butler said.
I'm sorry, what? Her insurer wouldn't pay for prescribed medication that her own doctor ordered for her? So they got between her and her physician? Isn't that called "rationing"? Was Ms. Johnston held hostage by her insurance company?

Would, say-y-y...a public option have helped prevent her drug abuse problems?

Nah, a government run program have just gotten in the way of her privately uninsured addiction, what with the Feds sticking their medical noses where they didn't belong and all.

Yeah, better to force someone to resort to committing felonies than to allow proper care.

"People want to think she was just a drug addict," he said. "She made a poor judgment choice. But what do you do?"
Why, you run a lying, corporate smear campaign to prevent Americans from getting the care they need, that's what! Silly question.

Assistant District Attorney Richard K. Allen said prosecutors considered Johnston's criminal-free background as well as her physical problems in agreeing to the mitigated sentence.
Levi didn't attend the hearing.

She really does need rehab. Let's hope she recovers and has no further drug issues... and that she has access to health care sooner than later... public health insurance... that she can afford.

with healthcare costs/concerns off their backs- businesses would be able to compete much better globally.

...in the long run.
The economics of it will make a single payer system inevitable if companies can opt to push this expense off the books. The GOP is terrified we will use corporate cost savings to our advantage as an engine toward a single-payer system. Its a win-win for everyone but the GOP.

eom

Kucinich with Ed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MWDwvjETyo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fseminal%2Efiredoglake%2Ecom%2Fdiary%2F7372&feature=player_embedded#t=188

I agree with the O.P. analysis as well.

Kicked and highly recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Karmadillo.:thumbsup:

They are lying to us again and there is always the 30% of the faithful that will swallow any bilge their offered.

HR 676 is the answer. But just like Newt Gingrich said back in 1993, "if we let them fix health care, nobody will ever vote for us again", this goes for the so-called centrists as well.
:kick: & R

statement on Democracy Now.

People listening would naturally run away from "massive tax increases" and the idea that employers would no longer contribute money to health care.

Employers would contribute to the National Health System through a tax, instead paying money to private insurance companies.


FUNDING.—
10 (1) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated to
11 the USNHC Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry
12 out this Act from the following sources:
13 (A) Existing sources of Federal Govern14
ment revenues for health care.
15 (B) Increasing personal income taxes on
16 the top 5 percent income earners.

17 (C) Instituting a modest and progressive
excise tax on payroll and self-employment in
come.

20 (D) Instituting a small tax on stock and
21 bond transactions.
22 (2) SYSTEM SAVINGS



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6351061&mesg_id=6351061

"AMY GOODMAN: You’ve been a longtime supporter, Congressman Waxman, of HR 676, of the single-payer bill, but you withdrew that support. Why?


REP. HENRY WAXMAN: A single-payer bill does not really have a chance to pass the Congress. It would be a radical transformation of our healthcare system. Some people could say, “That’s fine, we should do it.” But I don’t think the Congress would have any realistic chance of passing a bill like that. You’d have to take all the insurance coverage that’s provided on the private sector and switch it over to the government. There would have to be massive taxes, increases, to make up for the lost money that’s now being spent by employers for their employees..."

Right now not many people understand how the public option and private plan mix is going to work.

The wealthy made clear to the legislators what it will and won't consider. So, the negotiations started with the "public option" which is scheduled to die so that the "real" reform will be rolled out. That reform, of course, is tailored as a means to grab more wealth from the rest of us.

To the wealthy who have interests in the health care industry, it's not a reform movement, it's a business opportunity.

I've said in other posts, the only way to get real reform here is to let the health care industry know that we will take them apart brick-by-brick and investigate its executives unless we get it. Then we might get a compromise that's worth anything. They have to be faced with the idea of losing everything.

People need to get angrier about this.

I like it! Not as much as driving a stake through there heart, mind you. But still a good idea.

...and I'm the first to point out that asking for a show of hands in a town hall meeting is not a random sample?

When polls say that the vast majority of people that have health insurance are happy with it, the polls are right and a show of hands at a town hall meeting is a skewed sample. This is why politicians are scared of single payer. They know that if they force people to leave the care that they are happy with and like, they sure as hell want to be positive that the new system is better. And chances are, it won't be, at least at first. Any new system is bound to need a couple years to work out the kinks--and a couple years is just enough for most politicians to lose their next election.

I'm not saying it can't work, I'm saying I understand why politicians are scared of single payer.

I did some googling today. The auto industry in 2004 was worth something like $320 billion dollars. I'm willing to bet the insurance industry is worth a lot more than that.

As much as everyone likes to say that insurance companies will live on providing supplemental insurance, I think it's a pretty safe bet that if single payer goes online it will basically destroy the health insurance industry.

If our government went into apoplexy over the collapse of the 300 billion dollar auto industry, what do you imagine it is going to do over the collapse of the helath insurance industry?

Moreover, many people are invested in the health insurance industry. If you have a 401K, you are probably invested in them yourself. What happens to all those investments?

I was not able to find good dollar values for the health insurance industry, but I bet it is a trillion dollar industry or more.

Hopefully, this will be what happens:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125029373754433433.html

The health insurance industry (unlike, say, the auto industry) builds no products. The "services" they provide are unnecessary. They are middlemen - nothing more.

So again, I was not able to find financial data to indicate the dollar size of the health insurance industry, but I would wager it is much larger than the auto industry.

Whether they produce a product or not is not really relevant. What is relevant is that you are going to take probably over a trillion dollars worth of American business and flush it down the drain, along with all the jobs that go with it.

If congress could not stand this with the automobile industry, what makes you think congress will stand for it with the insurance industry?

They already bailed out insurance giant AIG.

..and we would SAVE $400 billion annually in administrative costs.



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/seafan/3335



The only losers would be a handful of company executives, a few hundred lobbyists and the members of congress who accept millions in insurance industry bribes...er, I mean "contributions".

A bit O/T (or maybe not), but the next time some government official promotes our "War on Drugs", someone should ask him why he wants "to take probably over a trillion dollars worth of American business and flush it down the drain, along with all the jobs that go with it".