Why is basic health care for Americans considered a leftist issue?

It is as basic as freedom itself. But CorpMedia frames it as a leftist issue thus marginalizing it. A large majority of Americans want health care reform. And I contend, call me a leftist, that that means a public option at minimum. The public doesn't want some painted up version of what we have now. But many here on DU also frame the public option as leftist. Isn't everyone in DU at least supporting a public option? If not I dare you to show your face.

And truth is not what they are spreading. They have already demonized the left to the end of the earth. Now all they have to do is plug in any noun, call it leftist, amplify it through the vast RW media microphone, and voila --the damage is done.

becomes a leftist issue these days.

It just shows how far the class war has come.

every time they try to muddy the word, I feel even more empowered.

the American mind that the idea of helping strangers out, or worse helping each other out via the government, is just anathema to them. It's such a pity really. You go back and you look at the forefathers and their devotion to inalienable rights, if they had had the chance to provide good health care for every citizen how can we doubt that they would have insisted upon it?

and by no means are they unanimously agreed upon.

the common welfare of people should include health care. Not just the right to pay an insurance company big bucks, but actual affordable health care. Just seems like a no-brainer to me that it would be one of the benchmarks of a civilized nation.

Not all, maybe even not most americans see health care as a right.

It's not in the constitution/bill of rights.

It has never been a right, or seen as such by americans.

We have always been one sickness away from the poor house.

We are in better shape as a nation in regards to health care now than we have ever been.

Full health care for all would be establishing health care as a right, which many on the right oppose ideologically.

Those on the left see health care as a right, and collectivist health care as a good thing. Those on the right see individualism and personal responsibility as the way everything should be done.

Maybe instead of trying to pass a health care bill, we should instead get an amendment passed that establishes health care as a clearly defined right, and then the courts can handle it?

At any rate, the tactic to go after the right is what Obama has been using lately. That it's the moral thing, the christian thing, for our nation to do. The right cannot dispute that..

Most basic rights are negative rights. If you want "positive" rights you're probably going to wind up undermining the concept of right altogether. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?

:*

If you disagree, you are a greedy bastard and can rot in your hell.

I'd love to undermine some of the ass-backwards attachment to "negative rights" Americans have and replace it with a healthy concept of positive rights - rights that actively help make people's lives better.

So yeah, what rhett said. And BTW, how did you manage to get 200+?

the Constitution does in fact provide a whole SLEW of positive rights.

The right of representation in government.

The right to one's intellectual property.

The right to a trial by jury.

The right to an impartial jury.

The right to peaceably assemble.

The right to petition the government.

The right to a grand jury for capital crime.

The right to know what charges are made against you.

The right to face witnesses against you.

The right to a speedy trial.

The right to counsel.


There may be more. These are the ones that spring to mind.

Shouldn't one's liberty allow them to live their life how they wish in their pursuit of happiness?
If no, then you disagree with the founders.

happiness. I believe that we individuals should be allowed to form a government that spreads the risk and helps those of us that fall on hard times. 90 million Americans are denied that right. They are being denied the pursuit of happiness because they cant afford it.

The founders didnt say that the pursuit of happiness should only be for the rich. In fact they said the opposite. They opposed the tyranny of corporations.

Every other single modern country makes it AGAINST THE LAW to restrict health care to private companies. They all recognize the dangers of for-profit health care. For-profit health care KILLS.

then I am sure you understand that it is only the individual who can and should be allowed, to determine what that happiness is, correct? For instance, if your happiness came from finally owning a catdog and you work your ass off in pursuit of that happiness, who am I or govt to think that we can take your money and hinder your pursuit?

OUR country has already formed a govt and we individuals ARE allowed to change and reform a different kind of govt that spreads the risk and helps those in need. The power to do so is in our Constitution and most of all this bickering would be silenced IF we took advantage of it.
In all honesty, they did not say the opposite. They believed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was for ALL men, rich or poor.
Yes, they opposed the tyranny of corporations, but they opposed the tyranny of govt even more. That is why our Constitution is what it is.

The US is going to have single-payer healthcare, it's just not going to happen overnight.

against was the tyranny of the East India Co. and their puppet King George. I think when you have government tyranny you'll find corporate tyranny the sponsor.

I agree they would want health care for every citizen. I think what has people nervous is that the American gov't does not have a good track record with any type of program they institute be it social one such as health care or some other venture. When is last time any gov't official proposed any program that a)worked as planned
b)came in on or under budget
c)solved the problem it was created for

cut corners and price gouge their client at every turn? You can get crappy service everywhere, but at least the President isn't pulling multi-million dollar bonuses every year while delivering substandard service.

However, as a recipient of Medicaid I will gladly tell you that it can use some improving. I wish it covered dental work and eye glasses. But it works well enough that I feel no need to trade it for something privately run and I very seriously doubt that a privately run company could offer me a policy that costs me less than Medicaid does anyway.

Wow, lots of live ones today...

Some of those bogs are so stinky. It's the gas.

It's amazing to me how infrequently Domino's is delivered, considering how many people are ordering. Pizza-lovers with 1000+ posts are by no means uncommon.

social security
medicare
food stamps
the post office

you'll quibble i'm sure.

settling the west would have been impossible without the security subsidy provided by the american army & it's genocidal war against natives.
then the government GAVE AWAY land to encourage settlement.

I can tell, these "libertarians" are either dumb brutes with the emotional maturity of a child or ivory-tower economic theorists that think they are god-like.

support the public option?

I would think that every American, particularly the "love it or leave it" conservative types would be strong supporters for the preservation of our purple mountain majesties and everything in between. There are things about America that I will never understand, including your point that healthcare for all people should be ideologically neutral whereas it's not. Conservatives in other countries such as Canada and the UK are mostly strong supporters of their universal healthcare systems.

It's covered IMO in the constitution under the Common Good. Especially in this age of world wide travel communicable illness is a real issue of public safety. I sure as hell would want that lady coughing next to me on the subway to get early treatment for her TB and not wait till she's at deaths door and in an ER. In addition If I have a stroke or a heart attack I'd want those ER personnel to be alert and there for my life threatening emergency and not already triaged out taking care of someone getting their diagnosis of lung cancer.

Reducing communicable illness is something we all need to participate in. I'm sure we'd all much rather have that guy cutting our produce for the salad bar getting treatment for his Hep instead of passing it off to us. We can't require our citizens to get medical care but we should make it as accessible as possible to promote public safety.

Next time you're out to dinner with a Republican ask them if they've thought about where their lettuce is coming from and who is preparing it. Explain how their health affects everyone.

don't tell me you haven't read the playbook.

capitalism gone awry

are made up OF HUMANS

responsibility limited. The whole purpose of incorporating is to limit the human's liability. Mussolini thought corporations were more important than humans, John Roberts thinks the same. How do you feel?

Getting the US into wars was once a liberal issue until the Repukes learned how to capitalize on it.
Strangely, Bob Dole during his run against Clinton mention the "liberal wars."

that Dole lashed out trying to connect the Democratic Party to all the wars of the 20th C. by referring to WWII as a Democratic war as well as Viet Nam. Don't know what he thought of Korea, though.

Because they cost much more than they would in Italy or Japan,
more people are unable to pay. So providing for all the needy
costs more here, would takes more from other good uses.

Problem is, the people in the media seems to be all in favor of
the overpricing. Or they don't know that it exists.

(I know that Zeke E knows that the total health bill
is too high. But is he willing to offend doctors and
the CEOs of hospitals and drug makers by mentioning
that they are overcompensated? At the moment,
it seems that he only looks at excess care.)

and Cuba is a well-known leftist country

In Europaean countries, governments of all parties take it for granted, though left-wing ones may on average spend more on it.

just sayin

Of course we all know that "taking personal responsibility" means "stop being sick, stop being poor".

Am I understanding you correctly? Support of a public option but questions over it's application or effectiveness are valid concern. Do you not agree? The Federal government is not exactly efficient, look at the 'cash for clunkers' program. Dealers are frustrated from being bogged down in red tape and still awaiting payment. This will be no different, there will be tons of red tape for not only the people but the Doctors to sort through, it's just the way the government works... inefficiently. How well does anyone expect it to work with millions of people all trying to sign up right away so they can finally visit a doctor? Are we to believe the government will be fully prepared? Can we not have a concern about that?
This in my opinion is one of the reasons I think this is considered a left issue. It's generally believed the left have more faith and trust in the federal government in having more control and directly providing for the people. Generally this is an area I agree with the right on. I think the federal government should have less control and be smaller and more efficient, sending many things back to the States to deal with. The government is about as honest and trustworthy as the very companies we bitch about. However, this is one issue I am not against them getting involved in and if the burden of those who have high insurance payments and those without insurance can be relieved I am all for it.
Soooo... I firmly support public option, but I do have some concerns.

of the private corporations. Esp the insurance corporations. Private insurance charges approx 30 cents out of every dollar for red tape and overhead while Medicare only charges 3 cents.

And your example of the cash for clunkers is laughable. The dealers are making out like bandits. They can wait a couple of weeks for their money. Money they wouldn't be getting.

I guarantee there will be problems with any public option. The corporations will be undermining with all their meg-resources.

Glad to see you strongly support the public option.

and you know how many Swedes storm the U.S. embassy in Stockholm on a daily basis begging for refugee status :sarcasm:

CHENEY et al...

How it is funded and the unwillingness to compromise is what makes it a leftist position. The large majority of Americans are for health care reform, but they are NOT for a public option, which gives no option, or single payer. Yet. It will come in time, but right now the average American does not want govt running things and the higher taxes that come with it. IF they did, we would have it.

Like it or not, not all Democrats support a public option and "daring" us to show our face is just another example of why some consider this a leftist issue.

The only true solution is single payer, but the left will compromise to the public option. But that's not enough for the wing-nuts. To you compromise is more profit for the greedy.

"right now the average American does not want govt running things". That's bullshit. If the CorpMedia asks the question skewed, of course that's the answer you get. Did you know that 60% of Americans want the government to keep their hands off their Medicare. and 10% of Americans dont know Hawaii is a state. When asked properly 75% of Americans want a public option.

"and the higher taxes that come with it". Talking point right out of the Faux script. The plan will more than pay for itself.

Why do you fear competition. A government plan will force the private corp to be competitive where they arent today. Billions of dollars scrapped off the top for the rich.

Get your head out of your Faux Hole.

How do you compromise when you have no clue what it is the other side wants? To you this is about nothing more than corporation profits and evil greedy rich people who are trying to hold you down and that prevents you from seeing or even caring about the concerns of regular people. Regular people who don't care a damn about corps, profits, rich people or whatever else you are trying to blame. We care about keeping govt out of our personal lives and definetely out of our pocketbooks.

So, the evil CorpMedia asks skewed questions when the numbers don't go your way, but are honest when you agree with their numbers? Laughable.
You say "when asked 'properly' (or in other words, how you want it asked) 75% of Americans want a public option" but you fail to mention that less than half of them are willing to pay for it. Doesn't sound like many really understand what a public option is, does it.

The plan will pay for itself? How? Exactly which govt programs do not require taxes to function? Are you seriously trying to tell me that I can use the govt plan without paying for it?

You don't understand the govt plan so you have no idea why millions of Democrats and the 'bluedogs' who represent them, are wary of it. Everybody will who can will be required to pay into the govt plan first and will then have the option to also pay for private insurance if they so wish. That is not an option and that is why millions and millions of Democrats are telling their 'bluedog' reps to not support it.
It's a real shame too, because all it would take would be for President Obama to better explain the program to get a bit more support for it or to just make it a real option and get all the support he needs.

haven't seen any 'facts' yet to be able to determine.

Basically, the left and right wings of our political spectrum can be summed up thusly: The right tends towards individualism, and the left tends towards collectivism.

People on the right tend to believe that we are all first and foremost responsible for ourselves, while people on the left believe that we must collectively be responsible for each other.

Thus people on the right feel that if you want health care (or food, or shelter, or money, or whatever), it is your responsibility to acquire it for yourself. They would not expect others to provide it for them, and they are offended and resentful when others expect them to provide it for others on top of providing it for themselves.

In my heart of hearts, I largely still believe this. However, part of what drove me out of the Republican party was the realization that there seems to be endless resources for wars and corporations, largely for the benefit of people who don't even live in this country. So if there are trillions of dollars to bring "freedom to Iraqis" (which is a crock of shit anyway but that is how it was sold) then clearly there should be trillions of dollars to spend on the welfare of common American people.

What really pisses off the right, though, is to have to pay for a social program that does not benefit them and probably never will benefit them. They don't mind paying for a military force, or a police force, or a fire company, because these are things that everyone, including those who pay for them, benefit from. The way health care reform is being sold right now it will leave people paying for their own private insurance, plus more taxes to fund government insurance for everyone else who can't afford insurance.

This is why the entire private insurance model should be scrapped, and replaced with a government insurance program that covers everyone equally - including those who pay and those who do not. If it were sold as an item for the common benefit of all, like the military, fire, or police, or road work, there would be a lot less resistance.

Unfortunately, the health insurance industry is a several hundred-billion-dollar industry. Probably far larger than the automobile industry. Since a single-payer option will effectively destroy the health insurance industry, this would mean the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and jobs. If the destruction of the auto industry was catastrophic enough to warrant a bailout, they aren't going to destroy the health insurance industry.

Basically, the left and right wings of our political spectrum can be summed up thusly: The right tends towards individualism, and the left tends towards collectivism.

People on the right tend to believe that we are all first and foremost responsible for ourselves, while people on the left believe that we must collectively be responsible for each other.

Thus people on the right feel that if you want health care (or food, or shelter, or money, or whatever), it is your responsibility to acquire it for yourself. They would not expect others to provide it for them, and they are offended and resentful when others expect them to provide it for others on top of providing it for themselves.

In my heart of hearts, I largely still believe this. However, part of what drove me out of the Republican party was the realization that there seems to be endless resources for wars and corporations, largely for the benefit of people who don't even live in this country. So if there are trillions of dollars to bring "freedom to Iraqis" (which is a crock of shit anyway but that is how it was sold) then clearly there should be trillions of dollars to spend on the welfare of common American people.

What really pisses off the right, though, is to have to pay for a social program that does not benefit them and probably never will benefit them. They don't mind paying for a military force, or a police force, or a fire company, because these are things that everyone, including those who pay for them, benefit from. The way health care reform is being sold right now it will leave people paying for their own private insurance, plus more taxes to fund government insurance for everyone else who can't afford insurance.

This is why the entire private insurance model should be scrapped, and replaced with a government insurance program that covers everyone equally - including those who pay and those who do not. If it were sold as an item for the common benefit of all, like the military, fire, or police, or road work, there would be a lot less resistance.

Unfortunately, the health insurance industry is a several hundred-billion-dollar industry. Probably far larger than the automobile industry. Since a single-payer option will effectively destroy the health insurance industry, this would mean the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and jobs. If the destruction of the auto industry was catastrophic enough to warrant a bailout, they aren't going to destroy the health insurance industry.

Some lefties who've never traveled or been anywhere outside their dorm claim these lofty ideals about how no one is required to work, but those who are not free spirits, should pay for it all. Or make ridiculous comments that if there were no military complex, somehow it would be paid for, forever. The rhetoric is as bad as the wingnuts' version. These kind of naive ideals are not what got universal healthcare into other countries.

"lefties" are generally that way because they HAVE been outside their "dorms", including overseas.

i know of no one claiming we don't need a military, but many (including me) maintain that it's budget is massively bloated compared to the NEED, and it strangles our ability to pay for, say, health care. having the biggest military on the planet is a mighty temptation for those in power to USE IT. perhaps you've noticed this, or have you been sleeping for 8 years?

you're making the "the left is just as bad as the right" argument, too. FAIL.

You will see plenty of people saying, tax all the rich and we can pay for healthcare without it costing a dime. Oh good lord.

Or, no one has to work, we're enlightened. We're the US, and healthcare should be a right. Whaa...? No, it's not. It's a necessity.

Name me one country that doesn't have a work ethic, that has healthcare? I disagree. Many people on DU who want health care are ignorant of the fact that they have to be a part of the community that works to pay for it. Look at all the other countries. No one is sunning themselves on a rock. Healthcare started in Europa and it wasn't really a good will gesture. Mostly self-interest. People started off their careers and really worked hard for many years. In many countries you start with a company and finish your life's work with them. They wanted to be sure that after 20 years of service you can't just fire someone and make someone homeless. That's what they're paying into.

This whole American idea, "but it's a right," is stupid. No country has healthcare because "it's a right." It's because people have decided to band together and help each other. I'm a Canuckie lol.

Basically, the left and right wings of our political spectrum can be summed up thusly: The right tends towards individualism, and the left tends towards collectivism.

People on the right tend to believe that we are all first and foremost responsible for ourselves, while people on the left believe that we must collectively be responsible for each other.

Thus people on the right feel that if you want health care (or food, or shelter, or money, or whatever), it is your responsibility to acquire it for yourself. They would not expect others to provide it for them, and they are offended and resentful when others expect them to provide it for others on top of providing it for themselves.

In my heart of hearts, I largely still believe this. However, part of what drove me out of the Republican party was the realization that there seems to be endless resources for wars and corporations, largely for the benefit of people who don't even live in this country. So if there are trillions of dollars to bring "freedom to Iraqis" (which is a crock of shit anyway but that is how it was sold) then clearly there should be trillions of dollars to spend on the welfare of common American people.

What really pisses off the right, though, is to have to pay for a social program that does not benefit them and probably never will benefit them. They don't mind paying for a military force, or a police force, or a fire company, because these are things that everyone, including those who pay for them, benefit from. The way health care reform is being sold right now it will leave people paying for their own private insurance, plus more taxes to fund government insurance for everyone else who can't afford insurance.

This is why the entire private insurance model should be scrapped, and replaced with a government insurance program that covers everyone equally - including those who pay and those who do not. If it were sold as an item for the common benefit of all, like the military, fire, or police, or road work, there would be a lot less resistance.

Unfortunately, the health insurance industry is a several hundred-billion-dollar industry. Probably far larger than the automobile industry. Since a single-payer option will effectively destroy the health insurance industry, this would mean the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and jobs. If the destruction of the auto industry was catastrophic enough to warrant a bailout, they aren't going to destroy the health insurance industry.

You say the right wingnuts like to be individualists. I say they are selfish. They got theirs others can just die. They think people should "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and stop being poor. They think sick people should stop being sick. They don't want to help, why should they?

They don't mind paying for a fire dept because they get a benefit. The same is true for insurance. Spread the risk. What benefit do they get from a fire dept if their house isn't ever on fire? Bullshit. They are selfish bastards hiding behind the individualistic facade.

The health insurance industry is a bloated inefficient mess and needs completion to get well. Just look to every other major country. They have health insurance but they are competitive.

We have the worst health care in the world, except for the rich and except for elective surgery. Basic health care is a right.

I was happier when you guys stayed republicans.

You have your facts very backwards. We, without question, have the best health care in the world. It's a fact, not an opinion. Most of the world relies our our technologies just to have their health care. Also it's not "only the rich" that have health care. Most of us have health coverage. A large amount of people who don't can afford it but choose not to. Also you don't have to have a job that provides it to get it. We are thinking about switching to some health coverage that is actually cheaper than the one we get through our jobs, and better from what we've been told from another employee. The fact is this current health care bill looks to help a very very small amount of people while reducing thee quality of car for a large majority.

If it passes. The only satisfaction I'll have it to say I told you so years from now.

that will prove that we have decent health care for middle class and poor Americans. Hundreds of thousands leave this country for overseas care every year. The same medications that cost $100 here cost $2 over seas. We have longer lines than all other major countries.

Granted the rich don't suffer from these problems, so for them we do have great medical care. Your pal Rush has a personal doctor and no waiting for his meds.

The denial of decent health care to children is not moral and definitely not Christian.

Go back to Fauxland.

We, without question, have the best health care in the world. It's a fact, not an opinion.

We, without question, have the best health care in the world. It's a fact, not an opinion.

This is provably false. According to the WHO, the United States ranks 37 in the world in terms of quality of health care, and 24th in terms of life expectancy. We also pay more, per capita, then every other nation in the world save one - the Marshall Islands.

Ah, an ex-republican, well apparently not very ex.

I have voted for Democratic candidates for all federal offices since 2006. I know that I am not as progressive as most people here but I am sick of corporatism, endless, non-declared wars, poor environmental policy, and the Patriot Act and all the erosions of liberty that have come with it.

You say the right wingnuts like to be individualists. I say they are selfish. They got theirs others can just die. They think people should "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and stop being poor. They think sick people should stop being sick. They don't want to help, why should they?

I understand what you are saying, and it has some merit. Ultimately, there has to be a balance between the work we do for ourselves and the work we do collectively to the benefit of all. It is not selfish to take personal responsibility for your life. Nor is it selfish to expect others to take at least some personal responsibility for theirs.

Of course one place where the right-wing folks are definitely short-sighted is that they don't see that quite often, things that we do for the benefit of all, collectively, pay back everyone, even those who didn't directly benefit from the original act. For an obvious example: public education. We all benefit from having an educated society because it makes us all prosperous - even those who did not make use of it directly.

We have the worst health care in the world, except for the rich and except for elective surgery. Basic health care is a right.

I was happier when you guys stayed republicans.

Woah, there, cowboy. I'm on your side. I agree with you that basic health care is a right.

which is right wing-nut code for "stop being poor". Most that live in poverty, especially those whose families have lived in poverty for generations, have no tools to "pull themselves up". Sure you hear about one or two that make it. I interface on a regular basis with people in poverty. Believe me, they just want a break. They want jobs that pay their rent and allow them to feed their children. They know that their are people that despise them for their poverty. I see children living in tents and cars. They have a hard time getting a good education that they need to get out of poverty. And the ruling class keeps driving down the wages, keeping more and more in poverty.

It is wrong to think that just giving people "just the facts" with no spin will convince people that we are right. DUers bashing Ed Schultz because he "sounds like Rush" is exactly the kind of BS that makes us lose, "sounding like Rush" is what works, people respond to emotion and outrage, not facts.

And part of that is lack of health coverage. It sounds insane but it's true--look at the conservatives' Senate hero, Jim DeMint. He represents poor, ill-educated, and proud of it, ya'll librul smart-asses! South Carolina.

NT

The dumbed down education system presents the greatly oversimplified notion that there are 2 political poles with Communism on the extreme left and Fascism on the extreme right. As both of these are centrally planned economies, this model leaves no room for the libertarian perspective.

It should be noted that Corporatists/Fascists have favored national heath insurance schemes in other lands, Bismark in late 1800's Germany for one.


No, I don't support a public option combined with a requirement that one must purchase a federally mandated level of insurance or face penalties.

The non-profit concept from yesteryear (Blue cross) is a middle ground position that collectivists and libertarians alike should support.
Non-profits are not taxed the same as a for profit corporation and so have much less overhead which should lead to lower rates for same coverage. As more people able to pay the full rate join the plan, there are more funds for those who might be able to afford only a portion of the true cost. There can be gov regulation/oversight to confirm they are living by their charter.

The other advantage to the non-profits versus a goverment run system is that governemnt maintains its proper and essential role as impartial referee. If there is a dispute between the non-profit and an individual or group, the gov can play the part of impartial referee easily. But if a government run program mistreats an individual or group, the government is a player and referee at same time -needless to say this is not a good situation for the individual or group that has been mistreated. If we throw in mandated coverage then the gov is forcing the individual to play a game in which the gov is both player and referee -an even worse situation for the individual.