Act Now!

WeWantThePublicOption

posted by Peter Rothberg on 06/24/2009 @ 10:50am

This post was written by Sarah Jaffe, a blogger, freelance journalist and Nation intern.

Seventy-six percent of Americans, according to a recent poll, approve of the health insurance plan that Barack Obama proposed on the campaign trail, which includes a public health insurance option.

Yet certain Democratic senators have expressed opposition to the plan in favor of proposals to fund coverage on the backs of union members--taxing the health benefits that working people won in collective bargaining by forgoing wage increases. A new video petition by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee calls out by name the Democratic senators who have opposed the plan, including, most prominently, Max Baucus and Blanche Lincoln, and notes the amount of money each has received from the health insurance industry. Coincidence?

The committee wants your help. Sign the petition on its site to add your name to the video, which will eventually be aired as a television ad -- in addition to an assured viral life. Names of people who support the public plan will be scrolled in the video's background in stark contrast to the money donated by the insurance lobby. Join us in supporting a public option--watch and sign at WeWantThePublicOption.com.

Comments (102)

  1. we don't want it, we *demand* it, as we always have.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/24/2009 @ 11:12am

  2. Congress-

    Stay out of healthcare and leave it to the states and the people as the Constitution dictates to you.

    NO FEDERAL FUNDED, GOVT RUN HEALTHCARE

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 11:12am

  3. But we ain't gonna get it, as the NYTimes today reports that Obama is willing to drop the public option.

    Ever so eloquently of course, so you'll never even know what he's doing.

    Posted by sloper at 06/24/2009 @ 11:33am

  4. Not only do we want a public option we want a single payer.

    It would save money... In 2007, the top seven publically traded health plans paid 37 executives three times what the top 562 leaders in the federal government (executive, judicial, and legislative) received.

    Adding to more than 300m. We need to get the profit motive out of health insurance. Just imagine if you had to pay a deductible before you could get police or fire services...

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 11:54am

  5. Congress-

    Stay out of healthcare and leave it to the states and the people as the Constitution dictates to you. Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 11:12am

    Anti,

    The constitution "dictates" nothing of the sort! The constitution does allow for govt run healthcare, Article 1, sec 8. It is within the general welfare coverage. Just because YOU don't think that was the intention of the founders at the time does not change how it has been interpreted by the SCOTUS. No offense but I believe the SCOTUS is more qualified than you to make that determination.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 11:58am

  6. We need to get the profit motive out of health insurance. Just imagine if you had to pay a deductible before you could get police or fire services...

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 11:54am

    The reason that police and fire services are provided at the state and local levels and not by the Fed is that like healthcare, there is no power for Congress to be involved in these issues.

    Why are liberals so afraid of the Constitution?

    Why do they refuse to abide by the 10th Amendment and let issues like healthcare be decided by the states and the people individually as the Constitution states?

    And why will they never answer these questions?

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 12:00pm

  7. I DON'T want a public OPTION, because all that does is give the insurance racket to make even MORE obscene profits by sending EVERYONE who uses their benefits off to the GOVERNMENT to be subsidized with our tax dollars. The only SOLUTION is to BANKRUPT the insurance racket TOTALLY with SOCIALIZED medicine. Sorry for shouting! NOT!

    Posted by gamphd at 06/24/2009 @ 12:05pm

  8. Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 11:12am

    But, again, Larry, let's remind everybody that you believe that child labor and mine safety should "left to the states"...

    so in your perfect world, if Kentucky or West Virginian 10 year olds "want" to work at the Ol' #12 coal mine, loading the carts or bringing down new canaries...

    you'll all for that.

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 12:22pm

  9. And why will they never answer these questions?

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 12:00pm

    I did answer your question. The provision of providing for the general welfare, negates your 10th amendment argument. Just because your oppinion does not agree with the SCOTUS really is irrelevant. Your argument that healthcare would be unconstitutional is not even an issue. Just because you intepret the constition one way does not make it so. While my oppinion is no more valid than yours, I believe the founders included the general welfare provision and left it vague precisely because they did not know what general welfare needs would be into the future.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 12:27pm

  10. The constitution "dictates" nothing of the sort! The constitution does allow for govt run healthcare, Article 1, sec 8. It is within the general welfare coverage. Just because YOU don't think that was the intention of the founders at the time does not change how it has been interpreted by the SCOTUS. No offense but I believe the SCOTUS is more qualified than you to make that determination.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 11:58am

    As long as I continue breathing, I will continue this fight to make the Congress and Presidents abide by the strict language of the Constitution.

    There is a very good reason why they put in the 10th Amendment and why Jefferson and Madison said the Fed has no such General Welfare power. The constitution they said was meant to limit the reach of the Central Govt and leave most domestic decisions in the hands of the states and the people.

    Do you agree with all SCOTUS decisions?

    Did you agree with Dredd Scott?

    Plessy v. Ferguson?

    How about Bush v Gore?

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 12:41pm

  11. But, again, Larry, let's remind everybody that you believe that child labor and mine safety should "left to the states"...

    so in your perfect world, if Kentucky or West Virginian 10 year olds "want" to work at the Ol' #12 coal mine, loading the carts or bringing down new canaries...

    you'll all for that.

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 12:22pm

    You left out parental permission.

    But yes I would. I started working part-time at age 12 because I wanted to work.

    the Federal Govt has no business interferring in these decisions.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 12:43pm

  12. NO FEDERAL FUNDED, GOVT RUN HEALTHCARE

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 11:12am

    No lifer mooch benefits at the VA.

    No Medicare

    No Medicaid

    Larry, what's the line that States can't cross with respect to handing out money, soap, lettuce, cars, health care, massages, or warnings on paint, toys, heavy machinery??? What's un-constitutional in your opinion in terms of the States being what you'd call hideously socialistic? Or the other direction, what's the State's obligation in terms of a 'safety net' / child labor / medical malpractice?

    Posted by winyahn at 06/24/2009 @ 12:50pm

  13. What I would like to see is that all of the Democrats get some [balls] on this issue. They have the votes, they have made the promises for over 40 years that they would give us Universal Care if they had the opportunity - well they have the opportunity, I can do without Universal Care only if the Public Option available!!! Without it the Dems have failed us big time and they will be toast!!! I will then believe quite rightly that there is only one real party, the party of special interests.

    Posted by pollyinthehills at 06/24/2009 @ 12:51pm

  14. What I would like to see is that all of the Democrats get some [balls] on this issue. They have the votes, they have made the promises for over 40 years that they would give us Universal Care if they had the opportunity - well they have the opportunity, I can do without Universal Care only if the Public Option available!!! Without it the Dems have failed us big time and they will be toast!!! I will then believe quite rightly that there is only one real party, the party of special interests.

    Posted by pollyinthehills at 06/24/2009 @ 12:53pm

  15. Well said, Polly.

    Posted by gamphd at 06/24/2009 @ 12:57pm

  16. Do you agree with all SCOTUS decisions? Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 12:41pm

    Agree or like? There are many decisions I do not like. We actually had to have a constitutional amendment(14th) to overturn Dredd Scott, so even though I did not like the ruling maybe it was the correct ruling under the constitution at the time.

    I don't think the Jefferson and Madison papers are as clear as you would like and think you cherry pick pieces of those documents to support your world view. That is fine and is your right. I and the SCOTUS disagree. So until the SCOTUS overrules the legitamacy of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Or there is a new constitutional amendment, your argument that national healthcare is unconstitutional is irrelevant.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 1:02pm

  17. Posted by pollyinthehills at 06/24/2009 @ 12:53pm

    Very true. If all they do is superficial changes, it is like tying wings on a pig. Still aint gonna fly.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 1:21pm

  18. So until the SCOTUS overrules the legitamacy of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Or there is a new constitutional amendment, your argument that national healthcare is unconstitutional is irrelevant.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 1:02pm

    If you read the history behind Helvering v Davis (1937) you will find just how political a decision this was in establishing the constitutionality of SS and Medicare.

    FDR had threatened to add 6 additional justices to SCOTUS because the Court was striking down his New Deal. The Court found a loophole for the taxation without ever addressing the Constitutionality of Social Security Insurance itself.

    the decision was a political calculation in response to FDR's threats.

    Hopefully, as they did with Dredd Scott and Plessy v Ferguson, the Court will find the courage to reverse this terrible decision and with the idiotic statements contained in Butler.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 1:25pm

  19. Hopefully, as they did with Dredd Scott and Plessy v Ferguson, the Court will find the courage to reverse this terrible decision and with the idiotic statements contained in Butler.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 1:25pm

    Not even in the same class, as I stated earlier Dredd Scott was not reversed by the court, but by a constitutional amendment. Plessy overturned by Brown v board of education, but in contrast to Butler, showed that separate but equal was not in practice/reality equal. Butler v. US is an interpretation of the constitution and it will be exponentially more difficult to overturn with out evidence such as provided in Brown v. Board of Ed. that separate was not equal.

    No matter how much you dislike the oppinion it will likely take a new admendment to over turn it, as there is no evidence to show that it is incorrect, unlike the other cases you cite.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 1:49pm

  20. Peter Rothberg is going pedal to the metal for socialized health care here.

    He wants the public option. He wants us to want the public option.

    With the public option the government insurance will be priced less and will drive private insurers out of the market.

    The government can set whatever price for it's option it wants. It is not dependent on the revenue from that "fee" or "cost" to finance the health benefits it would then have to provide, in the same way a business would.

    In the business world, the price is determined due to market forces and also the need of the business to stay financially viable.

    With the government option, the government can and will set the price at whatever it wants, and then the other private entities will be gone.

    And then it will be all government, all the time, on the road to socialized medicine.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 2:01pm

  21. But yes I would. I started working part-time at age 12 because I wanted to work.---Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 12:43pm

    "12"???....Larry, you said TEN "10" was okay with you before.

    William Polk on Afghanistan posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 03/26/2009 @ 12:09pm

    BTW, what REASON would a parent want their 10 or even 12 year old working in a coal mine?...."learn a trade"?...."more money than a lemonade stand"?

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 2:16pm

  22. With the government option, the government can and will set the price at whatever it wants, and then the other private entities will be gone.

    And then it will be all government, all the time, on the road to socialized medicine.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 2:01pm

    Sounds good. I believe that is where we need to go. We would have universal healthcare, people would not go bankrupt because they got sick, our businesses would be more competitive since they would not be paying healthcare costs that fund multimillion dollar salaries for insurance execs, heck maybe those savings would eventually result in employees taking home more money. I don't understand why folks think socialized healthcare is so bad. We already have it. Except you have to be over 65, which comprises about 15% of the population and growing.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 2:21pm

  23. opponents of public healthcare are always claiming excessive delays and refusal of many health services in canada and england. but if you google the longevity table in the united nations you will find that canada is 11th,england is 22nd and the u.s. is 38th! how come no one talks about this!?

    Posted by irvingbarnett at 06/24/2009 @ 2:27pm

  24. But yes I would. I started working part-time at age 12 because I wanted to work.---Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 12:43pm

    "12"???....Larry, you said TEN "10" was okay with you before.

    William Polk on Afghanistan posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 03/26/2009 @ 12:09pm

    BTW, what REASON would a parent want their 10 or even 12 year old working in a coal mine?...."learn a trade"?...."more money than a lemonade stand"?

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 2:16pm

    What is your point about my own experience? I said that I am for the freedom for parents and their children rather than govt to make this decision.

    As to a reason;

    survival, no interest in college, because the child wants to. All 3 are sufficient by themselves and even more so when coupled.

    Why are you so against the right of families and their children to determine their own wants/needs, and who to get there?

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 2:28pm

  25. But yes I would. I started working part-time at age 12 because I wanted to work.---Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 12:43pm

    "12"???....Larry, you said TEN "10" was okay with you before.

    William Polk on Afghanistan posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 03/26/2009 @ 12:09pm

    BTW, what REASON would a parent want their 10 or even 12 year old working in a coal mine?...."learn a trade"?...."more money than a lemonade stand"?

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 2:16pm

    I dunno, might be ok if it's a union gig.

    :)

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/24/2009 @ 2:47pm

  26. irvingbarnett,

    You were wondering "....opponents of public healthcare are always claiming excessive delays and refusal of many health services in canada and england. but if you google the longevity table in the united nations you will find that canada is 11th,england is 22nd and the u.s. is 38th! how come no one talks about this!?......"

    Comments:

    1. Libs do talk about these stats.

    2. Nobody should be talking about them because they are not relevant. There are a lot of things that can determine average lifespan, etc. in a country based on the demographics in the country besides the health care system.

    3. Statistics that people do not talk about is what happens once people do get sick......and I have seen stats where the cancer survival rate is higher in the U.S. than the U.K......that would be dependent to a much greater degree on the type of health care in the country...than just the lifespan of people in the entire country.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 3:02pm

  27. Sorry, schneller...

    per Larry's "Let the states handle it"...and of course no campaign finance reform, Big Coal has bought up the WV and/or Kentucky state house and governorship with lots of hefty campaign contributions...."free speech" don't you know...

    and they outlawed all unions...which naturally Larry loves as well.

    BTW, Larry, point is....you are so FAR out there that you'd take us back to the "good ol' days" of the 1890s...and this-

    http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/factmine/childmin.htm

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 3:39pm

  28. BTW, Larry, point is....you are so FAR out there that you'd take us back to the "good ol' days" of the 1890s...and this-

    http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/factmine/childmin.htm

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 3:39pm

    These straw man arguments just don't make the grade Mask.

    the English period you cite was

    1. Under a monarchy where citizens had little liberty or say in their own govt

    2. few educational opportunities-certainly just the nature of our availability to home school eliminates those conditions

    3. <The transport of coal and iron-stone, on the other hand, is very hard labour, the stuff being shoved in large tubs, without wheels, over the uneven floor of the mine; often over moist clay, or through water, and frequently up steep inclines and through paths so low-roofed that the workers are forced to creep on hands and knees.>

    Have you ever seen me advocate the abandonment of all technology development? Of course not.

    4. And the funniest part, you cite an article by one of the fathers of communism, Engels. Coincidence, I think not (lol).

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 3:48pm

  29. More on your comparison Mask.

    The period you like to cite on child labor was during a time of one of the greatest depressions in modern European history. It lasted for about 20 years.

    It also was in the midst of the transition into the industrial era.

    Now if we ever get to a point like that, families may wish they could send their young children to work.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 3:57pm

  30. One needn't stretch this point back to some pre-industrial point to demonstrate Larry's arousal to all things Ayn Randian (whom he and W goosestep to, but haven't read).

    Families and their right to choose their own path! Ha - more Ayn Rand rosy glasses. In the pure world, without help-rejecting drug-abusing schizophrenics getting pregnant and neglecting/abusing their babies, resulting in PRE-NATAL BRAIN DAMAGE.

    Larry, do you think FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME is a liberal lie, a socialist scare tactic, a communist con?

    If not, spell out exactly WHO/HOW you'd have intervene for the strung out shattered drug abusing young mom's who in a stupor sing your praises - no one's gonna stop them from getting pregnant, from keeping the baby, from raising it for they know best, they don't need no government controlled jerk telling them what to do.

    Larry, you speak of "family" - can you define this? Is anyone who gets pregnant basically on their way to being a family, regardless of the father's status, regardless of mental capacities or mental illness?

    Speaking of addiction, you are endlessly addicted to the socialist / commie / leftist / liberal strawman - the intrusive, govt knows best strawman -- yeah, yeah, it lives in your head and you really really really believe it, because you listen to it all day, so it must be true, but it's your own voice.

    Tells you someone, and here's the trick!, "not you" wants to tell you and everyone else how to wipe our asses.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/24/2009 @ 8:03pm

  31. Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 3:57pm

    The problem is exploitation - by both employers and parents. There is obviously a problem in any system where children work from morning until night or do not have control over their own earnings. This was the case until child labor laws. It may also create perverse incentives for sweat shop labor and for families to have more and more children, who are then used as free labor for the household, that will be detrimental to society. That's why these laws were implemented in the first place.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/24/2009 @ 11:27pm

  32. Just imagine if you had to pay a deductible before you could get police or fire services...

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 11:54am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Fire dept. service charges are covered by Homeowners and Farmowners insurance, otherwise you WOULD PAY them yourself anywhere from $150.00 and up to $5,000. or more depending!

    Amazing what people don't know.

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/24/2009 @ 11:52pm

  33. The only SOLUTION is to BANKRUPT the insurance racket TOTALLY with SOCIALIZED medicine. Sorry for shouting! NOT!

    Posted by gamphd at 06/24/2009 @ 12:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Why force the ignorant and foolish posters like "gamphd" to pay insurance premiums for home, auto, "death" (life), or even health? Let them keep their money and when catastrophe strikes sue them for everything they own or will ever own or produce, and if that isn't sufficient send them to debtors prison or make them indentured servants for life???

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/25/2009 @ 12:08am

  34. opponents of public healthcare are always claiming excessive delays and refusal of many health services in canada and england. but if you google the longevity table in the united nations you will find that canada is 11th,england is 22nd and the u.s. is 38th! how come no one talks about this!?

    Posted by irvingbarnett at 06/24/2009 @ 2:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Just saw a "special" on a small village in China where a huge percent of the 250 villagers are 100 or older! What kind of socialized medicine do you think they get? Its becoming tourist attraction for the wealthy. We have a highly stressful society which will kill anyone fast!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/25/2009 @ 12:15am

  35. "The U.S. healthcare system now offers adequate care to 252 million Americans and the Democrats want to "expand it to 300 million Americans without expanding the number of doctors and nurses!

    "The problem of covering everybody Obama is really going to end up covering nobody. It's going to cause rationing of healthcare, because you simply don't have enough doctors to go around. You can't just write a check and expand healthcare. You have to have people actually delivering the service.

    "One of the big things we talk about in 'Catastrophe' is the experience of the Canadian system. Candidates [there] did the same thing -- they said we'll cover everybody. Then they said, wow these costs are getting crazy. We have to cut the costs. So they cut the income for doctors

    "More doctors retired. Fewer people went into the profession. Fewer and fewer doctors. More and more patients. Longer and longer waits, and worse and worse outcome.

    "The cancer death rate in Canada is 16 percent higher than in the United States . . . If you get colon cancer in Canada you have a 42 percent chance of dying. If you get it in the U.S., you have a 31 percent chance. Why? Because the top two medicines that we use in chemotherapy to treat colon cancer are not available in Canada -- not because of any health restriction, but because they're too expensive.

    "And the incidence of colon cancer in Canada is 25 percent higher. Why? Because there's a 4-month wait for a colonoscopy. And when you get the colonoscopy, it's not read by a [gastrointestinal specialist] but by an internist or sometimes by a nurse practitioner, and they miss about a fifth of the polyps that ultimately become cancer.

    You get a system where really healthcare is not delivered to anybody. And that's what we're headed!"

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/25/2009 @ 01:10am

  36. I don't understand why folks think socialized healthcare is so bad. We already have it. Except you have to be over 65, which comprises about 15% of the population and growing.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 2:21pm

    Yes, we have it...AND IT'S GOING BROKE, just in case you haven't noticed. Why doesn't the left and the libs ever want to examine the results of their idiotic policies? LBJ and the war on poverty? How did that turn out?

    Posted by fram at 06/25/2009 @ 07:00am

  37. How did that turn out?----Posted by fram at 06/25/2009 @ 07:00am

    Well, between Social Security and Medicare, we have an elderly population that has one from THE poorest segment of society pre-1940s, to a position where they are no longer forced to go to "poor houses" or move in with families whose own fortunes aren't diminished by having to exist on a single paycheck, while caring for both children and elderly parents.

    BTW, if you conservatives think you'll ever SCRAP either of those two programs....simply ask yourself two questions-

    1. Why do NO Republican politicians EVER mention the phrase "cutting spending" and "Medicare" in the same breath?

    2. How did Dubya's 2005 attempt to privatize Social Security go?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 07:51am

  38. Posted by fram at 06/25/2009 @ 07:00am

    "Why doesn't the left and the libs ever want to examine the results of their idiotic policies?"

    Why doesn't the right and the conservatives ever want to do a more nuanced analysis that takes into account that funneling "profitable" patients through a private, for-profit system and leaving the "unprofitable" patients for the public system to pick up is always going to make for a public system that is "going broke".

    Let's imagine a completely for-profit system. What happens when you get diagnosed with a glioblastoma and can no longer work? A for-profit system has every incentive to shift these patients either so they don't get the care they need or onto the public dime.

    And the really amusing part of this whole discussion is that a public option gets framed by conservatives as rationing health care, when any form of cost containment for health care ultimately involves rationing - whether public or private.

    So, there are a couple of nasty little bits of hypocrisy here. You don't want to accept the moral implications of leaving sick people for dead in order to save dollars that is at the heart of why we provide public health care in the first place. Nor do you want to accept the simple fact that shedding unprofitable patients onto the public dime is one of the externalities of a private system. Nor do you acknowledge that a private system without a public one - is both a public health nightmare and morally wrong.

    So, in other words, you don't have a viable alternative, and you are trying to shift the perception that the negatives inherent in your position are a feature of public health care, rather than of our private system.

    Care to respond or is that too much of an examination of "your policies" for your taste?

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 08:14am

  39. Without the public option there will be no healthcare reform. With a weak doomed to fail public option there will be no healthcare reform. It must be a comprehensive public option that includes medical care, dental care, vision care, preventative care, cost controlled prescriptions and access to naturopathic medicine. And it must be properly funded. Without this the program would fail in the longterm.

    If these things are done the cost of per person medical care should drop dramatically within a decade. And a successfull public option would open the door for single payer healthcare. Eventually it would take the profit motive out of the healthcare industry. And insurance companies could make their money by supplying exotic insurance for such things as vanity plastic surgery procedures, hair replacement, penis and breast enlargement, limo-ambulance service to the hospital, penthouse hospital rooms with a wet bar and the like. Because we all know that the rich need to feel special.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 08:49am

  40. The constitution they said was meant to limit the reach of the Central Govt and leave most domestic decisions in the hands of the states and the people. Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 12:41pm

    "leave most domestic decisions to the states and the people".

    Very profound observation Larry. Since 76% of the American People who support a public option happen to live in all the States. I would say that requirement has been met.

    The only problem is we have a very corrupt house and senate who are bought and paid for by the health insurance companies and big pharma. They no longer represent their constituents, they represent these corporate special interests. Makes a good case for publically funded elections.

    Maybe you could come up with another Constitutional gem to support that aswell.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 09:07am

  41. In the business world, the price is determined due to market forces and also the need of the business to stay financially viable. Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 2:01pm

    There is no market force "free market" in the healthcare industry. The number of licensed doctors is strictly regulated by the AMA. Pharma companies are licensed and regulated. Health Insurance companies are licensed and require at least 500,000 prescribers to even establish one. So how is that a "free market". What it is, is a monopoly.

    Healthcare, like the fire dept, police dept, water company, power company, highways and all other essential public services should be part of the commons. Since when do you have a choice to shop around for the water that is piped into your house or the power that is supplied? Since when do you have a choice of highways to drive on to find the best price? Same with healthcare.

    The thing is with healthcare you only think you have a choice. That is an illusion.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 09:28am

  42. Yes, we have it...AND IT'S GOING BROKE, just in case you haven't noticed. Why doesn't the left and the libs ever want to examine the results of their idiotic policies? Posted by fram at 06/25/2009 @ 07:00am

    How can an essential public service "GO BROKE"? These are not profit making corporations that need to pay shareholders ans CEO's. You are attempting to compare apples and bacon.

    Is the military going broke? Is your local fire dept in the red? Does the police dept need a better bottom line? Hopefully you see how ridiculous your point is. These are all things we pay taxes for. If the cost of these services goes up, then taxes need to adjust upwards to account for the shortfall. These are all essential services (except for perhaps the enormous expense of the military).

    The health of the country should be considered and essential service to its people also.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 10:00am

  43. These things that we all consider essential for the public good and should and can only be provided to all by good government are what we call "The Commons".

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 10:06am

  44. Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 09:07am

    You aren't addressing the crux of his argument. You have to explain why public healthcare is the responsibility of government and why it needs to be funded and administered at the federal level.

    You can see the problem in this comment you make at 06/25/2009 @ 09:28am:

    "Healthcare, like the fire dept, police dept, water company, power company, highways and all other essential public services should be part of the commons."

    Essential services are paid for by different levels of government:

    1. Local: Fire/police departments, public utilities, schools, etc.

    2. State: state police, many highways, etc.

    3. Federal: national defense, federal highways

    I think LVL might be willing to accept a certain level of government intervention on health - say for contagious disease control. But, I don't think he would allow for federal involvement in health beyond what is an obvious extension of Constitutional powers. For example, he might grant that the federal government can quarantine people trying to enter the country or possibly moving between states that have tuberculosis.

    So, the discussion really boils down to defining what role the government should have in providing for healthcare and what levels of government need to be involved in providing those services.

    LVL would argue for more limited government involvement and placing most of that responsibility on lower levels of government. You, from my reading, seem to be arguing for broad federal involvement in healthcare. You need to explain why it has to happen on the federal level based on some reasonable grounds, such as efficacy.

    As it stands, you are making a bandwagon argument that ignores the deep, fundamental problems with the federal government dictating to states.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 10:14am

  45. Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 10:14am

    If you look at your list of 1. 2. 3. you will see that their are some things that are better handled at the federal level, like national defense. The reason for this is that some things simply cannot be handled at the local or state level. They require outlays of capital, oversight and administration that is better suited to the federal government.

    Comprehensive Healthcare for all people is a huge undertaking and in my opinion is so important and far reaching that it would fall under the Federal Government category.

    If you think otherwise or have a better plan, let's have it. The health of our nation is equal only to education. A healthy and educated population is probably our best defense against anything.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 10:32am

  46. For disclosure, I recognize the need for publicly administered health care focused on prevention. I also think there is a role for positive public policy to influence people to make better lifestyle choices through taxation, social suasion and other methods.

    The problem is, that like LVL, I distrust government, particularly federal government. I think the federal government already has too much power, and I would like to see stronger state and local governments (or even communities) solving their own problems.

    There are also real advantages that come from a single payer (monopsony), such as the ability to drive down prices and costs. But, there are also disadvantages such as deadweight loss that might serve to ration healthcare beyond that seen in systems with more buyers.

    So, I think there needs to be a better discussion. Conservatives do not get to complain about costs without talking about how private healthcare contributes to that cost, rationing and the moral problems. Progressives cannot avoid talking about the costs, the problems of monoculture and the imbalances of power that a federal system introduces between local communities needing healthcare and a federal government that hypothetically provides it.

    There's lot of other issues that could be raised. It's a shame so much more time is spent talking past one another.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 10:35am

  47. Oh and by the way.

    I could give a rats ass what LVL might be willing to accept. Are you like a fan of his or something?

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 10:37am

  48. Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 10:32am

    "Comprehensive Healthcare for all people is a huge undertaking and in my opinion is so important and far reaching that it would fall under the Federal Government category."

    Let's change Comprehensive Healthcare to Public education. What's different between providing healthcare and education that healthcare should be administered at the federal, rather than state, level - when education is not?

    "The reason for this is that some things simply cannot be handled at the local or state level. They require outlays of capital, oversight and administration that is better suited to the federal government."

    On one hand, you are saying it is not possible. I think this is demonstratably false because people without insurance can go to hospitals and get treated. This is typically paid for by states.

    On the other hand, you are making an efficacy argument that it would be more efficient to have single payer. I'll grant this fact. The question is will there also be deadweight loss and other unintended consequences that result in less healthcare available (which I believe is a recurring conservative criticism).

    Can you address this point? Can you argue that the benefits will be better than the possible reduction the total capacity to provide healthcare services that may result from these efficiencies?

    Can we also acknowledge that this is a complex issue that doesn't lend itself to easy answers?

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 10:45am

  49. The problem is, that like LVL, I distrust government.

    serve to ration healthcare beyond that seen in systems with more buyers. Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 10:35am

    Firstly, I distrust government to. The reason is because our government is corrupt up to it's eyeballs. Publically funded elections would root that out after awhile.

    Secondly, Healthcare is being rationed out right now fer christ sake. 46 million americans don't even have access to it. Except for an Emergency Room. (Great care there, just ask the bleeding and dying folks in the que). And if you have a tumor in your brain that is giving you headaches they will give you aspirin and let you die. Funny how Steven Jobs got a liver so quick.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 10:48am

  50. The question is will there also be deadweight loss and other unintended consequences that result in less healthcare available (which I believe is a recurring conservative criticism). Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 10:45am

    What is "deadweight loss"? I'm not sure what you mean by unintended consequences.

    Also you are acting like we are the first to experiment with this "radical" new type of healthcare when a plethora of other countries have already led the way. Thet all live longer than we do and have a lower infant mortality rate and most only spend at most like 13% of GDP. What more do you need to know?

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 10:56am

  51. SRJ,

    Thanks for some reasoned posts that provide some of the common concerns that you and I share, even while coming from different ends of the the political spectrum.

    I cannot understand why liberals/progressives seem completely unwilling to even entertain anything other than a huge federal approach to this issue.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 11:04am

  52. Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 10:37am

    I look at LVL's commentary as more of an archetype. He basically espouses a neoconservative philosophy while paradoxically and at the same time believes in limited government (classical liberalism).

    I have the same problem. I understand that practically there are certain things the government provides that are useful for promoting individual liberty. But, I also believe that government is the greatest source of evil and the greatest threat to personal liberty and local communities.

    This provides a lens that informs my views. I support gun rights, even though I am generally a pacifist because gun rights make government tyranny more difficult. Contrast this to a standard "progressive" that thinks abolishing guns makes us safer, which it may. But, it does so by ignoring the danger of government or problems in the position such as the availability of substitutes.

    In the course of these kinds of discussions, I have come to realize two things:

    1. Most people cannot be convinced by words of anything, and so, most of this kind of discussion is a total waste of time.

    2. The only thing that makes it worth spending your time on is if you are willing to listen to the other person and think about the implications of the issues they raise for your position.

    The problem in 2 is that it is difficult to see what is significant because so much that is worthwhile is hidden by the defects of the person, poorly thought out arguments and knee-jerk reactions that most people end up going to 1 and stop listening because so much of the discussion is so bad.

    What makes it better is when we apply the principle of charity and try to find the gold in the steaming pile. That's exactly why I care what LVL might argue.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 11:06am

  53. On a somewhat related note, I want to plug our new all natural energy drink that offers an alternative to the caffeine, sugar, and chemical drinks like Red Bull that are further degrading the health of mostly young people.

    http://tinyurl.com/Energytest

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 11:08am

  54. Can we also acknowledge that this is a complex issue that doesn't lend itself to easy answers?

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 10:45am

    And also. NO, it is not a complex issue, although most of those currently "serving" in our government would make you think so. Both Democrats and Republicans. They have for the most part sold their souls to the devil, so to speak.

    The current crop of representatives need to be purged. Save a few. Without that happening we will be lucky if we have an America left that looks anything like what the founding fathers envisioned.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:12am

  55. Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 11:08am

    I truly hope you are kidding. It is not a related note unless you think that drinking some poison concoction from a fascist will improve your health..

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:16am

  56. I truly hope you are kidding. It is not a related note unless you think that drinking some poison concoction from a fascist will improve your health..

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:16am

    Fascist? We are an employee owned company that includes people in 14 countries.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 11:18am

  57. Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 11:08am

    Don't most "natural energy drinks" merely substitute processed guarana for the caffeine, to the same effect?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 11:21am

  58. Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 10:48am

    "The reason is because our government is corrupt up to it's eyeballs."

    In my view, government is evil by definition. There is no reforming it. The question is whether it more useful than not and whether the possibilities for tyranny can be reigned in.

    "Healthcare is being rationed out right now fer christ sake."

    Of course it is being rationed. Healthcare must be rationed. The question is one of responsibility and efficacy. Is it the government's role to ration healthcare and will it do it more fairly than alternatives? Which system provides for a better, more healthy citizenry? That is essentially the question. But, you are assuming you know the answer. I'm not so sure, and I am looking for something convincing.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 10:56am

    "What is "deadweight loss"? I'm not sure what you mean by unintended consequences."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

    I'm not sure I completely understand it. But, here's a try at a relevant example to our discussion: the availability of doctors, nurses, etc.

    Presumably, single payer is going to lower costs. But, how? Part of it will be wages. So, if a physician is looking at taking on $200,000 debt to go to medical school and then make $50,000 in residency for several years, a significant reduction of salary at the end of their training will likely reduce the number of people able to pursue a career as doctors. So, then we would have to put in incentives - such as subsidizing medical education - to offset this problem, and this would need to be factored in to the total cost of the single payer option.

    And there are other implications from drug and device availability based on the incentives offered by the buyer, i.e., the government.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 11:23am

  59. By the way. Srjenkins is Larry's foil. The supposed guy from the other end of the political spectrum. It is actually Larry himself.

    Right now the "Right" is being paid some good bucks to post on "liberal" web sites. Especially when you can create multiple screen names and then use one screen name as a foil against or for the other.

    The Nation should investigate this practice and then find a way to insure the integrity of this site. Really...

    If anyone from the Nation is reading this they need to police their blogs and eliminate the posers. That would be very helpfull. Thanks!

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:24am

  60. Public Option is code for nothing. We must demand single payer and nothing less. The insurance companies can pound sand and so can any legislator who opposes this and other progressive initiatives such as nationalized energy, nationalized currency (get rid of the illegal Federal Reserve) and tranparency at every level of government. End the stupid "War on Terror" and the idiotic "War on Drugs", both of which bespeak total ignorance of real solutions. No more Mr. Nice Guy with politicians. It's of, by and for the people you miscreants. If you don't get it and follow through, we'll see you in the streets. I think even lefty Americans probably own more "pitchforks and torches" than Iranians.

    Posted by thekidde at 06/25/2009 @ 11:27am

  61. Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 11:04am

    "I cannot understand why liberals/progressives seem completely unwilling to even entertain anything other than a huge federal approach to this issue."

    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. For many problems, it is hard to see any kind of solution beyond one that can be provided by government. It suggests a lack of imagination in thinking about alternative solutions and an overactive imagination on what government can do (or even an appreciation of the role of government in the evils committed in the world).

    But, it is not unique to liberals. Neoconservatives seem to also believe that the government should be "spreading democracy" using a huge federal approach that would make the founders, particularly those concerned about a standing army, blush.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:12am

    I'm thinking you should spend some time listening to The Who's, "Won't be Fooled Again".

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 11:34am

  62. Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 11:23am

    Free education through college for those who qualify would most likely supply enough doctors and nurses to fill any shortage. You know, like they do in France. Free education does wonders for the infrastructure necessary to supply a host of professionals in every industry.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:39am

  63. Oh yeah, lets buy into antis devolving societal responsibility for health care. Takes us right back to the sacrosanct individual & his blood relative back ups. And with Jenk's wish to add years more of "discussion" to remedy the joke system administering HC at the present time.

    Same old fear. If we don't play along the rich & well connected will gather up all their marbles & go home & everybody else will wither away. Here we go again.

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/25/2009 @ 11:43am

  64. Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:12am

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 11:34am

    Uh, exactly what part of that did I post? Gets a bit confusing doesn't it. When you play so many parts. Eh Larry?

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:43am

  65. I'm done posting for awhile. I will let the Nation root out the schills before I waste anymore time. Got more important fish to fry. Bye for now.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:52am

  66. Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:24am

    Ah, this one makes my day. This is, possibly, the funniest thing I've ever read on The Nation.

    Take a moment to think about writing style, amount written and the time stamps. What kind of schizophrenic genius would this imaginary anti-socialist/srjenkins need to be?

    This does say something interesting about you. The idea of purging Congress, denouncing enemies and so forth are ideas I've heard before. It is an idea that is just as at home in Soviet Russia as it was in "I have a list" 1950s America.

    Communists, in their coming revolution, envision putting anarchists against the wall along with the "free market" bourgeois, which is precisely why their revolution will always be coming and never happen.

    Do make an effort to "purge" yourself of these inclinations, will you?

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 12:01pm

  67. Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:43am

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:52am

    And then, you top yourself! Bravo!

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 12:05pm

  68. chaoszen,

    You say above:

    "......Right now the "Right" is being paid some good bucks to post on "liberal" web sites......"

    OK then, where is my money? I have not received any money at all yet, and I have been posting here for some time now.

    Where are the checks, chaoszen?

    Are you holding them up?

    I want my money, and I want it now!!!

    I did not know I had money coming to me, thank you for letting me know.

    But are you going to help me collect the money that you say is owed me (since I am being paid and have recieved no checks yet to date)?

    I want my money, and I want it now!!!

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 12:23pm

  69. Don't most "natural energy drinks" merely substitute processed guarana for the caffeine, to the same effect?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 11:21am

    That is true. However in our formulation, guarana is a minor component for the energy derivative. The driver is the Acai berry itself in synchronisity with the guarana, yerba mate and our sugar substitute, Palatinose (which gives extended energy).

    <Palatinose, which was until now self-affirmed GRAS, is a disaccharide derived from sucrose.

    The product claims to have a sweetness profile similar to that of sugar, but the company says it has "more scope for flavor development."

    In July 2005 the product received novel food status, the European equivalent of GRAS. And in Japan it has been used as a food ingredient since 1985.

    "The FDA's 'letter of no objection' paves the way for Palatinose to be used in a wide range of food and beverage products, including ready-to-drink and instant beverages, snack bars, dairy products as well as energy-reduced, wellness and sports foods and meal replacements," said Palatinit, a subsidiary of leading global sugar producer Südzucker AG.

    The company claims that the sugar replacer not only maintains sweetness but also has a low glycemic effect and can be used to enhance the nutritional value of foods since it is digested much more slowly than sucrose, providing energy over a longer time period.>

    http://tinyurl.com/lfavl4

    BTW, we are also the official sports drink of the Boston Red Sox.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:45pm

  70. Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:45pm

    Well.....good luck with that, I guess.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 12:50pm

  71. By the way. Srjenkins is Larry's foil. The supposed guy from the other end of the political spectrum. It is actually Larry himself.

    Right now the "Right" is being paid some good bucks to post on "liberal" web sites. Especially when you can create multiple screen names and then use one screen name as a foil against or for the other.

    The Nation should investigate this practice and then find a way to insure the integrity of this site. Really...

    If anyone from the Nation is reading this they need to police their blogs and eliminate the posers. That would be very helpfull. Thanks!

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/25/2009 @ 11:24am

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 12:05pm

    SRJ,

    I got quite the chuckle out of this accusation myself. If he had spent any amount of time actually reading what both of us post, he would know that while we are both have libertarian views, we come from different ends of the political spectrum.

    And I guess he's never seen all of the debates between us (or was it me debating with myself, or was it you debating with yourself?)

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:57pm

  72. With the public option the government insurance will be priced less and will drive private insurers out of the market.

    With the government option, the government can and will set the price at whatever it wants, and then the other private entities will be gone.

    And then it will be all government, all the time, on the road to socialized medicine. - Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 2:01pm |

    A couple of things:

    1. FEAR!!!! Your entire post is about fearing something that you've never experienced (i.e. "socialized" medicine).

    2. When medical costs are out of control (as they are currently in America), and when an industry is monopolized by only a few companies (like healthcare and big-pharma), I would think that conservatives would like the idea of introducing competition, in the form of a public option, into the mix. Let the market work it out! However, you guys are so scared of ANYTHING that benefits the public over private industry, that you have somehow forgotten what private industry is for: to support the public. (or the REpublic). The healthcare industry in the U.S. does not currently support the public OR the Republic, other than forcing people to make decisions as to whether they want to live, or have the money to eat and pay their mortgages.

    Finally, your assumption that a public option will lead down the road to socialized medicine is absurd. A public option WILL force Big Pharma and BigMed to actually be competitive if they want to survive. Isn't that what you pro-Marketers are for? Why is healthcare for all so damn scary to you people?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 1:32pm

  73. 2. When medical costs are out of control (as they are currently in America), and when an industry is monopolized by only a few companies (like healthcare and big-pharma), I would think that conservatives would like the idea of introducing competition, in the form of a public option, into the mix. Let the market work it out! However, you guys are so scared of ANYTHING that benefits the public over private industry, that you have somehow forgotten what private industry is for: to support the public. (or the REpublic). The healthcare industry in the U.S. does not currently support the public OR the Republic, other than forcing people to make decisions as to whether they want to live, or have the money to eat and pay their mortgages.

    Finally, your assumption that a public option will lead down the road to socialized medicine is absurd. A public option WILL force Big Pharma and BigMed to actually be competitive if they want to survive. Isn't that what you pro-Marketers are for? Why is healthcare for all so damn scary to you people?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 1:32pm

    your position (which echoes that of Obama) is severely flawed.

    IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to have competition between private enterprise and the govt.

    Can a private enterprise run deficits indefinitely?

    Can a private enterprise print money?

    Can a private enterprise totally control pricing? (on this they have some limited ability, but it is controlled also by the market; the govt has no such limitations).

    Where did you get the idea that the purpose of private companies (including healthcare) is to support the public?

    Their purpose is (if they are a for profit company) to make money for their investors. They do so by providing a service or product for which there is a demand.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 1:39pm

  74. Finally, your assumption that a public option will lead down the road to socialized medicine is absurd. A public option WILL force Big Pharma and BigMed to actually be competitive if they want to survive. Isn't that what you pro-Marketers are for? Why is healthcare for all so damn scary to you people?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 1:32pm

    1. Socialized medicine is what many on the left are calling for (including some members of Congress).

    2. It's always funny to see a leftist use the term "Big" when describing corporations, but never about "Big" Federal govt.

    3. I love competition; but this won't provide any.

    4. Healthcare isn't scary to me. I wish people actually practiced it in this country. I just prefer a govt that doesn't control every aspect of my life.

    When Edwards was running, his UHC proposal mandated that people participate and go to see doctors every year or be fined.

    Now Obama and the Congress want to fine people if they choose not to have health insurance.

    I don't have it. I don't use doctors. I have practiced natural health all of my life. I don't want the govt taking away my freedom to choose not to see doctors.

    But your support of this BIG govt takeover will require me to surrender this liberty I have been able to enjoy all of my life.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 1:49pm

  75. Antisocialist said:

    "..BTW, we are also the official sports drink of the Boston Red Sox....."

    And then Mask said:

    "....Well.....good luck with that, I guess....."

    And then I say that I certainly hope the sports drink causes Boston pitchers to be intimated and lose control at the sight of Derek Jeter at bat, thus causing them to throw slow pitches over the middle of the plate that Derek can hit out of the park for home runs.

    And I hope that your sports drink causes Boston infielders to bobble and misplay otherwise easily fieldable ground balls.

    Oh, wait!! Maybe your drink does that already. Maybe Bill Buckner was drinking your stuff. Of course, that helped the Mets and not the Yankees.

    If your drink does not do those things, please alter your formula so that it does do that when a person has a uniform on that says "Red Sox".

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 1:54pm

  76. Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 1:54pm

    LOL

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 2:24pm

  77. Anti -

    "Can a private enterprise run deficits indefinitely?"

    "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney Now I don't agree with that but hey, he's YOUR guy.

    "Can a private enterprise print money?"

    No. Printing money is not part of a public option to healthcare. Your point?

    "Can a private enterprise totally control pricing? (on this they have some limited ability, but it is controlled also by the market; the govt has no such limitations)."

    I disagree...private enterprise's primary power is that they control the pricing of their product...usually based on market forces...and GREED, if they can get away with it.

    "Where did you get the idea that the purpose of private companies (including healthcare) is to support the public?"

    Any private company that doesn't have customers (i.e., supporting the public), usually goes out of business pretty fast, or doesn't get investors in the first place.

    "1. Socialized medicine is what many on the left are calling for (including some members of Congress)."

    Not me. I want the public OPTION...as in "let the people have what they want." Is this or is this not, a democratic Republic? 72% of We the People want it.

    "2. It's always funny to see a leftist use the term "Big" when describing corporations, but never about "Big" Federal govt."

    Again, not me. W ballooned the size of the gov't and ran up deficits when we had surplusses. Wanna explain that? If you blame it on 9/11, I'll vomit.

    "3. I love competition; but this won't provide any."

    How do you know until you try it?

    ~continued in next post~

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 2:27pm

  78. Anti - (continued)

    "4. Healthcare isn't scary to me. I wish people actually practiced it in this country. I just prefer a govt that doesn't control every aspect of my life. "

    OK. I get that. So, if 72% of Americans wanted to own gigantic red sewing machines, you'd be all for that, right? So, 72% of Americans want a public healthcare OPTION. It's OPTIONAL...YOU DON'T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE. If you like your overpaid insurance and huge deductibles, then fine, keep it. If the government ever tried to make it mandatory for all citizens, you would find me right next to you protesting that. We could share a beer (I don't know if you drink beer, hope I don't offend).

    You may not like the government controlling every aspect of your life, but you evidently have no problem with some unknown insurance company flunky whose name you'll never know and who gets paid annual bonuses to drop coverage for people who have a disease (which might someday be YOU) controlling your medical care and deciding whether YOU receive a treatment that you or a loved one needs to survive.

    Where's your compassionate conservatism now?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 2:39pm

  79. "Can a private enterprise run deficits indefinitely?"

    "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney Now I don't agree with that but hey, he's YOUR guy.

    "Can a private enterprise print money?"

    No. Printing money is not part of a public option to healthcare. Your point?

    "Can a private enterprise totally control pricing? (on this they have some limited ability, but it is controlled also by the market; the govt has no such limitations)."

    I disagree...private enterprise's primary power is that they control the pricing of their product...usually based on market forces...and GREED, if they can get away with it.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 2:27pm

    1. Deficits-ignores the point completely.

    The govt can provide healthcare at a loss indefinitely whereas a private company cannot do so-thus it is not true competition

    2. Printing money-again you ignore the point.

    The govt if out of money simply has Congress raise the debt ceiling and then prints more money. Private corporations cannot do this-thus again not true competition.

    3. Pricing-So, if a doctor, nurse, or hospital does not feel they can survive on the govt rate (which is happening now with Medicare), they will opt out and go with the private insurers which defeats your competition.

    The alternative is that the govt makes them work for the reduced rates and thus creates a slave relationship.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 2:39pm

  80. You may not like the government controlling every aspect of your life, but you evidently have no problem with some unknown insurance company flunky whose name you'll never know and who gets paid annual bonuses to drop coverage for people who have a disease (which might someday be YOU) controlling your medical care and deciding whether YOU receive a treatment that you or a loved one needs to survive.

    Where's your compassionate conservatism now?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 2:39pm

    I don't have insurance companies my medical care since I don't use the healthcare systems in this country.

    I also have a living will that says that no extraordinary steps shall be taken to preserve my life in the event that I am unable to communicate that to health officials.

    I don't believe in extending life and thus driving up health costs. when it's your time to go, we should just go.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 2:43pm

  81. Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:57pm

    It's a bizarre leap of logic. Because I know enough of your positions to know what you would likely argue, he jumped to the conclusion that I must be you. Never mind the inconvenient facts that we end up on opposites sides on, just to name a few topics: our views of Christianity/Islam, the use of military force, abortion, child labor, Israel, Constitutional/judicial interpretation. Somehow, the point of my (or your) posts and opinion is simply to act as a foil for the other view. If I/you wanted to write a Socratic dialogue, why chose this forum for it? It doesn't even make sense on its own terms.

    Since we are talking about our respective viewpoints, I'd also point out (not to be more libertarian-than-thou) that you have an authoritarian streak that makes me more inclined to call you a classical liberal than a libertarian, not that I think chaoszen would appreciate that difference.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 2:45pm

  82. Since we are talking about our respective viewpoints, I'd also point out (not to be more libertarian-than-thou) that you have an authoritarian streak that makes me more inclined to call you a classical liberal than a libertarian, not that I think chaoszen would appreciate that difference.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 2:45pm

    I actually have pointed out to bloggers here that I'm more of a classical liberal, but despite even providing the Wiki link on it, they just don't seem to understand. They think "classical liberal" means traditional progressive liberal ala late 20th century.

    I also lean somewhat towards elements of minarchism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 2:55pm

  83. I don't believe in extending life and thus driving up health costs. when it's your time to go, we should just go.-----Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 2:43pm

    So the "The Government will ration health care" argument, really doesn't influence you against it...maybe even a bit for it?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 3:09pm

  84. So the "The Government will ration health care" argument, really doesn't influence you against it...maybe even a bit for it?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 3:09pm

    Not really since I just don't want them involved at all.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 3:15pm

  85. Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 3:15pm

    But fair to say, you'd have no problem with the "rationing care" aspect...yes?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 3:53pm

  86. Posted by pollyinthehills at 06/24/2009 @ 12:51pm

    Well put Polly!!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2009 @ 4:26pm

  87. I don't have insurance companies my medical care since I don't use the healthcare systems in this country.

    I also have a living will that says that no extraordinary steps shall be taken to preserve my life in the event that I am unable to communicate that to health officials.

    I don't believe in extending life and thus driving up health costs. when it's your time to go, we should just go.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 2:43pm

    Thats just fine and dandy, you are allowed to have your beliefs. However, you should not expect or want others to adopt your beliefs. The majority of Americans don't think that acai berry juice and prayer are going to prevent them from dying of cancer or heart disease. Just because you don't use healthcare services, does negate the need for those services.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/25/2009 @ 4:46pm

  88. Not really since I just don't want them involved at all.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 3:15pm

    So, because you don't want the government involved in YOUR healthcare options (you have "opted out" of the whole "insurance" industry [you don't even have life insurance?]), you think the rest of us should not have the option to have the government involved in ours.

    Authoritarian streak, indeed. No compassionate conservatism to see here, folks. Move along, move along.

    If you have no dog in this fight (as you say), then why argue to deny the rest of the 72% of Americans what they want? I mean, you're certainly allowed your opinion, but you seem pretty vociferous about something that won't ever affect you (according to your statement). It can't be purely social theory, can it?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 5:27pm

  89. It's morally wrong to leave 100 million un or underinsured and 1 illness away from financial ruin. And it's wrong to burden small business with the outrageous insurance costs also -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

    Posted by reg373 at 06/25/2009 @ 5:40pm

  90. If you have no dog in this fight (as you say), then why argue to deny the rest of the 72% of Americans what they want? I mean, you're certainly allowed your opinion, but you seem pretty vociferous about something that won't ever affect you (according to your statement). It can't be purely social theory, can it?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 5:27pm

    Because I always fight against further govt intrusion into the lives of Americans, whether it affects me directly or not.

    Or do you think we should we should only get involved when it affects us directly?

    But there is the fact as I've said that the Obama and the Democrats are proposing mandating that everyone have insurance coverage. So it does directly affect me. That is like a huge tax increase.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 6:49pm

  91. Libertarian solution to teens having sex leading to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in their babies?

    Posted by winyahn at 06/25/2009 @ 8:20pm

  92. Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 2:55pm

    The problem in the minarchist position is that government is frequently the source of aggression.

    Posted by reg373 at 06/25/2009 @ 5:40pm

    "It's morally wrong to leave 100 million un or underinsured and 1 illness away from financial ruin."

    Fine. What do you propose and why is it better than the alternatives?

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 6:49pm

    "Because I always fight against further govt intrusion into the lives of Americans, whether it affects me directly or not."

    This isn't true. You fight against intrusion you think is not in the Constitution. However, you do support government intrusion you believe is legitimate, such as the broad use of military powers that is probably the biggest threat to individual liberty in the world today.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/25/2009 @ 8:20pm

    "Libertarian solution to teens having sex leading to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in their babies?"

    It's not the government's job to protect citizens from themselves. Government is the servant, not the master.

    You want to solve this problem in your neighborhood? Start a free clinic and offer Norplant II to any woman that asks for it - assuming you can get government approval to do it.

    See how insanely simple that solution is? And the only problem in implementing it is government and money. Make it happen.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 11:41pm

  93. The Constitution, designed by the richest men in American, provides for government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. Get used to it.

    Posted by godistwaddle at 06/26/2009 @ 07:20am

  94. Posted by godistwaddle at 06/26/2009 @ 07:20am

    Given that was over 200 years ago...and given you tell us to "get used to it"....

    and given you're STILL HERE...it must not be THAT bad, huh?

    BTW, no, that's not a "Love it or Leave it" comment...that's a "What the hell???" comment. I understand people who complain and offer SOME ideas and hope for even modest changes....but not people who complain and offer NO ideas and say "nothing will change!"?

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 08:02am

  95. Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 08:02am

    Modern cynicism is a belief that the problem in question is systemic and is inherent to the system, and therefore, it isn't amenable to incremental changes. The reason this strikes you as "What the hell???" is your a frame of reference. You are, at heart, a pragmatic incrementalist. If you had been around during the American Revolution, you would have more likely have wanted to reform the British system than join the revolution. This is probably true of most people.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/26/2009 @ 08:15am

  96. Posted by srjenkins at 06/26/2009 @ 08:15am

    No, no, srjenkins....I'm happy to hear out the "We need a Revolution, man!" folks as well. Problem with them is DETAILS...they never seem to come up with any or they try "Once it gets SO bad, the people will rise up".

    BTW, that plays on both the Left AND Right now. Listen to your average Glenn Beck show...if you can. heheh.

    But godist represents a portion too...that of the "It's all f**ked, nothing's going to change because it's been this way for 200 years!"....or the more paranoid types who think "The Cabal" is running the show and nothing can be done to stop them.

    But a "revoutionary"...bring 'em on. I love 'em.

    Of course, we've been hearing their tune for atleast 40 years...since Woodstock and Abbie Hoffman, if not back 80 years to Norman Thomas and Eugene V. Debs.

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 09:18am

  97. we don't want it, we *demand* it, as we always have.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/24/2009 @ 11:12am

    Those who don't pay for anything ALWAYS demand from those who do..it is how socialism works right up until the system crashes as they run out of other peoples money and print so much that NO ONE has any money.

    And there you have it....the liberal "Progressive" battle cry in one short manifesto...

    the last sentence fragement was cut off, I believe, sensored...reads thusly..

    "we don't want it, we *demand* it, as we always have....and we will mandate that someone else pay for it..."

    Peter. ...of course 62% want it..what a surprise...ask them if they are willing to pay for it like medicade with a deduction out of their already disappearing paycheck from deductions, ...and ask them if they want to cover all illegals, too..and then show them the math from ALL past federal programs promised costs.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 06/26/2009 @ 10:09am

  98. Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 09:18am

    But, you are asking for something that is not a characteristic of revolutions. You think the Continental Congress or the Bolsheviks had a plan to establish a new state? It is, more often than not, a protest or a local opportunity that grows into something unexpected.

    I tend to be very selective in my media choices. Apparently, it's selective to the point that I'd never even heard of Glenn Beck. Now that I have, I can say I'm about as interested in Glenn as I am in Oprah, Rush, Bill Mayer, Dennis Miller or even Keith Olbermann - which is to say I'm not interested at all. Even Jon Stewart is only tolerable in very small doses.

    And I sympathize with godist, particularly in these times where we hear all this discussion about Iran's ballot access and the problems that presents to true "democracy". All said without the slightest hint of irony. Hey, Iran had more viable candidates on the ballot than we got - anyone notice that detail?

    As for revolutionaries, we've had those throughout our history. Is Thoreau that different from Abbey Hoffman? Is John Wilkes Booth or Alexander Berkman that different from Ted Kaczynski? I think they are more the same than different.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/26/2009 @ 10:44am

  99. Posted by srjenkins at 06/26/2009 @ 10:44am

    Several points-

    1. "You think the Continental Congress or the Bolsheviks had a plan to establish a new state?"....well YES, they did. It was called the "Articles of Confederation" and the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Mind you, neither retained that form...but they DID have some "plan".

    Plus they did have some idea as to WHAT they wanted to do, how to go about it, and what SPECIFIC promises they were promising to their supporters and the public. The "new Revolution" folks offer vague anarcho-socialism on the Left or vague anarcho-libertarianism on the Right.

    2. You're missing nothing with Beck...another huckster, less brains than Limbaugh. Just pointing out an example on the Right.

    3 . Neither Thoreau's nor Hoffman's ideal society has emerged....merely "incremental changes towards it".....which is my point.

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 11:29am

  100. godistwaddle,

    You say:

    "...The Constitution, designed by the richest men in American, provides for government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. Get used to it...."

    Actual facts:

    The Constitution was designed by the richest men in America.....to enable all of the people of America to have a say in governing themselves and work towards the enfranchisement and involvement of people who were not involved or denied participation at the start.

    People from all economic strata were now governing themselves, and there were people who were denied opportunity and involvement at the outset but our system of self-government enabled others to right those wrongs and strive for involvement by all people.

    People were never really able to govern themselves before this and people were never really able to work from within to fix wrongs in their own societies before this..........

    America, through the Constitution, changed this.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 1:23pm

  101. Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 11:29am

    The Articles of Confederation was prepared as part of the Second Continental Congress, which was convened after fighting in Concord already began. The Articles were not even in ratified-ready form until late 1777.

    Same goes for the Russian Revolution. It was a power grab that turned into a mess, and you can only see a plan if you look at the whole thing retrospectively.

    I've got to go with the Leo Tolstoy view of history, which basically holds that "great man" or in your case "great plan" theories are just applied after the fact and that the real causal factor in historical movements are like calculus, building from some unknown function of individuals together reaching a consensus that moves the world.

    As for Beck, there's no end of nitwits, left and right. As for ideal societies, they may take longer than the time we have had for this brief experiment on this continent. If all else fails, Mask, you can always lengthen your historical time frame.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/26/2009 @ 3:16pm

  102. Posted by srjenkins at 06/25/2009 @ 11:41pm

    Cool. So you're for ZERO government involvement.

    Same for vets with PTSD on the streets?

    Domestic violence? Carjacking? Burglary? Teen drug abuse?

    Same sort of response for all things related to police/fire/rescue?

    An ER should not get reimbursed by the government to treat a gunshot victim with no money?

    All things related to product safety / say cheap products that cause electrocution?

    All things related to traffic safety / speed limits / drunk drivers?

    All things related to healthcare delivery / malpractice?

    Posted by winyahn at 06/26/2009 @ 9:26pm

Peter Rothberg Peter Rothberg

Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

House Passes Health Reform, But Without Reproductive Rights | Pelosi secures necessary votes, but only after allowing anti-choice Dems to bar access to abortion in new programs.
John Nichols
160 Comments

» Editor's Cut

Around The Nation | Obama, one year on. Plus: Jeremy Scahill takes your questions, and a new video series from The Nation.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
33 Comments

» The Notion

Injustice in Illinois | Prosecutors in Illinois should be more concerned with an innocent man behind bars than journalism students' grades.
Ari Berman
28 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Obama Fails in Middle East | Clinton delivers the ultimate diss to Abbas.
Robert Dreyfuss
163 Comments

» Act Now!

Equality Across America | This week, young LBGT activists are staging a National Week of Initiative.
Peter Rothberg
16 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Thursday | Dying laptops, recapping the election, the Dow, and the Yankees with the World Series.
Eric Alterman