If people are looking for a hook for government health care for all, call it "Medicare For All"

like Thom Hartmann and others do.

Covers the "All"
Makes the point that government health care works
Makes the point we already have government health care
Makes the point that those arguing against government health care, who favor Medicare, are mindless hypocrites
Avoids phrases that are too slogany/marketing phony and dehumanizing




http://www.thomhartmann.com

:yourock:

I haven't yet heard an elevator pitch for single payer (or any other versions of health care reform).

The GOP has an elevator pitch for the status quo. Or at least plenty of slogans.

"If this elevator plunged to the ground, would you be covered"?

No, that's prolly not a good one.................


:think:

What are the key benefits?

Everybody is covered!
Everybody saves money!
Everybody has more choice!

Hell, that might cover it. I guess if you have a full two-minute version, we could go into the idea that larger pool == more savings, and the largest pool possible is "All Americans." We could touch on the idea that private insurance, by definition, will be motivated to charge you as much as possible, and help you as little as possible. Everybody will be able to identify with that reality, except maybe those people who are invested in lying to themselves.

We might mention that it's insurance, not actual "health care." You get to choose your providers, which is what people really care about. Nobody gives a fuck about who pays for their care. They care about being able to make their own care choices. With a nation-wide insurance provider, those choices will increase, not decrease.

It's sad that none of the Dems came out swinging with this immediately. Because now we're spending precious energy and time trying to explain to people that universal health care is not, in fact, related in any way to Logans Run or Nazi Germany. And worse yet, actual Single Payer was thrown under the bus before the game even started.

"We could touch on the idea that private insurance, by definition, will be motivated to charge you as much as possible, and help you as little as possible."

How's that?

Soundbite of the Congressional confession/s of those who personally profited/benefited when they denied coverage that led to people's deatths?



One thing that doesn't get talked about is how being healthy benefits all of us, to have healthy, (educated) -- hey maybe even EMPLOYED!! -- communities.

--- A Healthy Public is part of a Healthy Recovery.

--- When you Cover Your Face this Flu Season, Imagine Everyone Covered by Medicare For All.



"We might mention that it's insurance, not actual "health care."

--- Get privatized insurance profits out of our health care delivery system.

--- CEOs get bonuses to cover you with paperwork and deny actual healthcare.



What about competitive pricing and drugs from other countries?

--- Outrageous insurance industry profits are based on DENYING care when people need it
and forcing people to pay top dollar for drugs that are available for much less.

Our Grand Chessmaster is smart enough to know how to pass something much worse, in a cunning way, which is much more super fun

I'm percieved as the political 'egghead' on the job.

I'm always asked, "Why don't they just cover us all with medicare?"

I try to explain about HB676, etc, but we aren't talking rocket scientists here, nice guys, lean a bit liberal, but not politally involved. They just want medicare.

IMO, covering us all with 'medicare' would generate the least resistance.

"We don't have to reinvent the wheel" -- Thom Hartmann and Hidden Stillness comment below.

"Knock out the 30% profit margin of the insurance industry and spend that money covering people" -- Thom Hartmann and Tahiti Nut comment below.


If you haven't maybe recommend your coworkers listen to Hartmann's show. IMHO he's the clearest at explaining and the most accessable to listen to (although non-eggheads may disagree on that last bit..............)

:thumbsup:

I doubt they'll listen to anything but modern rock, but I can try.

See, they just ain't political. Very simple guys in a way. But they are hoping for healthcare. I'm thinking about at least getting a couple of them to contact our congress people about HR676, I might be able to get that far. No re-inventing the wheel is a good thing for them to think about. :) :hi:

The "scoring" by the CBO only looks at the federal budget and NOT the out-of-pocket costs to working Americans. Thus, it creates the illusion that there's only a cost side and no saving side to the average working class American.

The dollar amounts used in this drive-by 'talking point' are almost irrelevant -- it's about planting the seed that dollars are dollars and there's more VALUE received when it's spent where the CEO isn't a billionaire.

Dennis Kucinich has been calling it "Medicare for All" for quite a while now, maybe a few years, and I have long heard expressions from the great universal-medical-coverage fighters like John Dingell and Ted Kennedy, phrases like "expansion of Medicare coverage." It is more than an effective slogan, it actually conveys a fact--that you don't have to re-invent the wheel or radically change the system of anything to get this; the entire foundation, structure and regulations are already there.

Democrats, (the sincere ones, not the corporate agents), would also do well to drop the stupid, confusing and unimpressive "more choice" routine. First, that sounds threateningly like the pseudo-"Medicare" Part D morass, and second, I think everybody's reaction tends to be the commonsensical, "I don't want 'choice'--I want it covered!"

Perfect point right there.

Very well stated, Hidden Stillness and so nice to see you.

"It is more than an effective slogan, it actually conveys a fact--that you don't have to re-invent the wheel or radically change the system of anything to get this; the entire foundation, structure and regulations are already there."

"We don't have to reinvent the wheel, just adjust it a bit" might appeal to the blue collar folks mentioned above. That's exactly how Hartmann puts it. (He says "tweak it a little":spray: )


"...also do well to drop the stupid, confusing and unimpressive "more choice" routine. First, that sounds threateningly like the pseudo-"Medicare" Part D morass, and second, I think everybody's reaction tends to be the commonsensical, "I don't want 'choice'--I want it covered!""

This sounds similar to the George Lakoff point in a post here yesterday --

"Institutions matter. The list of what needs reform makes sense under one conceptual umbrella......."

"But one idea, properly articulated, takes care of the list: An American Plan guarantees affordable care for all Americans. Simple. But not for policy wonks.

"The policymakers focus on the list, not the unifying idea. So Obama's and Axelrod's statements last Sunday were just the lists without the unifying institution. And without a powerful institution, the insurance companies will just whittle away at enforcement of any such list, and a future Republican administration will just get rid of the regulators, reassigning them or eliminating their jobs."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6353157&mesg_id=6353157

have or have family memebers on medicare..

not about death panels or whatever they are saying.

We know that many baby boomers will be eligible for Social Security And they will also be eligible for Medicare.

We are told that we can partially fund health care reform with hundreds of billions of dollars in savings from Medicare.

What happens when millions of new people start to enroll in Medicare over the next decade and stay on the program for another 20 years?

Estimates are that the current number of people on Medicare will grow from 46 million to 79 million over the next two decades and that the influx of new people begins in 2011.

Even without knowing all the details of the numbers, that is a hell of a lot of people moving to Medicare and I believe that any savings will be needed for the Medicare program.

In addition to covering everyone, a Medicare for All program would also help to minimize the projected strain on the Medicare system.

What is in it for the young folks?

Not having to worry about being covered yourself.

Not having to worry about parents and other relatives struggling to find the money for supplemental Medicare plans.

Not facing the possibility of increased taxes to support a struggling Medicare system in the future.

Not sorting through different insurance plans.


Maybe I am missing something, if so please share.

:)

Boomers paid double for SS in the 80's too.

yes I remember when they raised SS in the 80's.

You'll have to tell us how you're wrong? :shrug: :yourock:

for months, but I never get a reply as to how we can spend hundreds of billions from Medicare for the new HC bill when so many will be eligible for Medicare over the coming years.

Any savings from new Medicare efficiencies need to help the new enrollees IMO. Otherwise down the line there will be tax increases or cuts to services.

It just does not add up to me, so I figured I must be missing something and hopefully someone will point that out.

Thanks, hope that makes sense.

:)

and can't be more specific about is Thom talking about taking the 30% "we're" spending now on Ins. Industry profits and using it to cover people's health insurance..... How?

Good questions. Thanks for that.

instead of premiums paid to private insurance companies the tax would be placed into the national system.

Waxman did a disservice to single-payer IMO, but that is another topic.

:)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6351061&mesg_id=6352779

Here is why I find Waxman's statement to be misleading....
Waxman...

"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."

Employers would contribute to the National Health System through a tax instead paying money to private insurance companies. To me his statement could be interpreted by people to mean that employers would no longer contribute to the cost of health care.


30 page pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_676_111th.pdf

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

for all their deals. :(

you're right!! :spray:

Hartmann does say our current option is the 'Pay-or-Die System, and that is brilliant.

:toast: Here's to Thom

the failure to grasp this and run with it makes you almost wonder if maybe the "democrats" in power don't really want health care reform...

concept by relabeling almost everything. What started out as Medicare For All in House bill HR 676 is now a public option. Health care reform became health insurance reform. They kept Medicare out of the conversation because they wouldn't have been able to get all those teabaggers in a tizzy if it had been framed as the same health care your grandmother gets and now you can have it.

:boring:

Is it the truth? Please explain to me what you consider about getting every human being in America covered with doctor and hospital care bull shit? I'm certain as a human being you aren't against all of it.

time and effort. My mistake. :blush:

much on your side.

I don't need an apology. An explanation would be nice but if you don't want to, it's fine with me.

There is no hook. You aren't a fish.

Great post, OM!

Healthcare is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT, it should NOT be a commodity!

persuit of happiness" and "promote the general welfare." How can we have life or promote anyone's welfare if we don't have healthcare?

:thumbsup: and a free media?

:rofl: