Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWith Iowa one month away, the almost obsessive horserace coverage is in full swing and, as it has for much of campaign, it shortchanges the substance of the serious and urgent issues in dispute.
Take the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over whose healthcare plan would cover more people or cost less. The substance of that battle received about two sentences in today's Washington Post front page story out of Iowa. But here's the real problem (because we all know horserace coverage is what we're going to get at this stage in this endless campaign)....Even if the Post or the Times devoted a full story analyzing the leading candidates' healthcare proposals, how much attention would the two papers give to alternatives offered by someone like Congressman Dennis Kucinich--the only candidate supporting a truly universal, Medicare for all, healthcare plan that, according to recent polls, has majority support? I suspect very little. In our downsized politics of excluded alternatives, media polices the parameters of what's considered "realistic" when it comes to many choices, including healthcare reform.
That's why a recent analysis of the mainstream candidates' healthcare proposals is so valuable. Released by Healthcare-NOW, an organization committed to universal single payer reform, it's a useful guide for voters who want to understand the full range of choices they should be seeking in this campaign. It's not that all of the leading candidates' proposals aren't advances over what we have now, but as voters and citizens we could demand more. And it will require an independent progressive movement to push truly universal healthcare reform onto the next president's agenda.
Check out the analysis below, prepared by Len Rodberg, Research Director, New York Metro Chapter, Physicians for a National Health Program, September 25, 2007. Presented to the New York Chapter of Healthcare-NOW on November 6, 2007.
The Mainstream Democratic Candidate' Proposals for Universal Healthcare
The mainstream Democratic candidates for President -- John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton -- have each put forward their proposals for "affordable quality health coverage for all." The three Democrats' proposals, while purporting to provide "universal health care", will not actually achieve this goal:
None of these plans offers a realistic way of containing the rising cost of health care. All will add additional funds to an already too-costly system. None will truly provide universal access to care.
Only a single payer national health insurance program can actually achieve affordable, workable universal access to health care.
The three proposals share a set of common elements:
The private insurance system would remain in place, with no fundamental change in the way it operates. Those who currently have insurance would not experience any change in how they are insured or the coverage they have.
Large employers would be required to provide insurance for their employees or (in the case of Edwards and Obama) pay into a fund to subsidize insurance for their employees.
Everyone (for Edwards and Clinton) or children (for Obama) would be required to have insurance, either through their employer or purchased on their own (an "individual mandate"). Income-related subsidies would be provided through the tax system.
Insurers would be required to offer coverage to everyone ("guaranteed issue") without limits on pre-existing conditions, and without "large premium differences based on age, gender, or occupation" (from Clinton's plan).
All would make available a "choice" of private insurance plans, as well as a public insurance option modeled on Medicare. (They use the language of the insurance industry -- and Hillary Clinton uses it in the name of her plan itself, the "American Health Choices Plan" -- suggesting that what consumers want is a choice of plan.)
All claim to achieve cost savings through expanded use of information technology, an emphasis on prevention, and better chronic care management.
What is missing from these plans?
Since multiple payers would remain (even if one of them might be a public payer), few of the savings and simplifications that are possible with a singe payer can be achieved.
Consumers must purchase insurance, but no limits are proposed on what insurers can charge them.
No regulations are proposed that would assure the adequacy of benefits or that would affect either the restrictions that insurers now impose on the choice of doctor and hospital or the way they handle, and deny, claims.
There is no simplification of the complex and wasteful private insurance system with its copays, deductibles, exclusions, and claim denials.
There is no assurance of a "level playing field" between the public insurance plan and the private ones. Insurance company advertising and targeted marketing will still be used to promote private plans over public and to avoid the poor and the sick. At the same time, the private insurers will surely insist on the additional subsidies they already enjoy in the Medicare Advantage program.
Nothing is proposed that would control the rising cost of health care. (The measures they suggest to achieve savings may well increase costs rather than reduce them. In any case, the possibility for savings is speculative at this point.)
Are these plans politically "realistic"?
The insurance companies will resist guaranteed issue and community rating, as well as other requirements in some of the plans (e.g., Edwards would require that they spend at least 85 percent of their revenue on medical care).
Business will resist a mandate that they purchase insurance. (In Massachusetts, they were unwilling to pay more than $295 per employee, and even objected to that small fee.)
None of these plans improves the situation of those who currently have insurance. Thus they are unlikely to generate strong popular support.
The proposed subsidies -- amounting to about $2,400 per uninsured individual -- are about half the cost of purchasing group insurance today. Millions will continue to find insurance unaffordable. (The attempt to impose an individual mandate in Massachusetts is already showing that, as long as the program continues to rely on private insurers, very large subsidies will be needed if coverage is to be both affordable and comprehensive; without such subsidies, either coverage will be limited, or it will be unaffordable.)
Millions of Americans who are currently underinsured, and threatened with bankruptcy in the event of serious illness, will continue to be underinsured and insecure.
These plans would add significantly to our overall spending on health care, already the highest in the world, with much of the additional spending going to insurance company administrative costs and profits.
Conclusion: These Plans Will Not Work! None of these plans will truly provide universal access to care. They do not overcome the very significant deficiencies of private insurance. None assures the American people of comprehensive coverage, none offers a realistic way of containing the rising cost of health care, and all would add additional funds to an already too-costly system.
They are at best a diversion from the direction we should be going, toward the creation of a single national, publicly-funded insurance pool that can provide comprehensive, continuous, cost-effective coverage along with the budgetary tools needed to begin containing costs.
Share this article
News & Analysis »
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
"how much attention would the two papers give to alternatives offered by someone like Congressman Dennis Kucinich"?
Exactly as much as somebody polling 3-5% deserves. Why cover a plan, by a candidate that has NO chance of ever implementing it?
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2007 @ 3:10pm
BTW, has anybody ever figured up how many people will be thrown out of work from the private insurance industry if it was eliminated?
(Oh, and before people say "Nobody's talking about eliminating private insurance!"...answer this-- So there will be benefits that private insurance will provide that Government won't? Okay...which ones? And how long until some "advocacy group" decides that those are "health care rights" and need Gov't coverage? And if so, why will there be private insurance, if the Fed eventually provides it all???)
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2007 @ 3:14pm
Exactly as much as somebody polling 3-5% deserves. Why cover a plan, by a candidate that has NO chance of ever implementing it?
Posted by MASK 12/03/2007 @ 3:10pm
Maybe if the public were to know the full details of each candidates' plans, the person with the plan supported by the majority would be polling better than 3-5%. Maybe if the Russerts, Blitzers and Courics weren't constantly repeating that Kucinic doesn't stand a chance, people might listen to their platforms and he would be polling better.
Posted by bjkron at 12/03/2007 @ 3:27pm
But who wants to have to choose between more than 2 choices on a ballot. Too much thinking for the likes of Mask....
Posted by bjkron at 12/03/2007 @ 3:28pm
Posted by BJKRON 12/03/2007 @ 3:27pm
So, without Media help (or lack of "attack"), Dennis is crippled? No "progressive" candidate has ever overcome low expectations to atleast COME CLOSE to winning the Dem nomination?
Posted by BJKRON 12/03/2007 @ 3:28pm
To what do you refer, BJ? The Primaries? There are atleast 8 choces to pick from...and the voters ARE choosing. The polls show it, but if you like we'll wait on actual voting in ONE MONTH and see if it's radically different and Kucinich sweeps the nomination.
Or do you mean the General? Well, in 1992 and 2000 we had strong 3rd party guys...one to the Right lost it for the Repub; the other to the Left lost it for the Dem. Wanna try that in 2008???
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2007 @ 4:00pm
"Business will resist a mandate that they purchase insurance. (In Massachusetts, they were unwilling to pay more than $295 per employee, and even objected to that small fee.)"
KVH, is the price of $295 per employee a monthly or annual fee? If so, I don't blame the businesses for not willing to cough so much money.
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2007 @ 5:27pm
KVH,
I personally think single-payer is the way to go as the HMOs do not add sufficient value to be included.
I have written Obama asking him to support single-payer and the response is that it is a two-step process of making insurance less profitable as a business by requiring full coverage and then insurance companies opting out of the business leaving the government as the single payer.
What do you think about this two-step process?
Posted by Metteyya at 12/03/2007 @ 5:32pm
Posted by ACOOK 12/03/2007 @ 5:27pm
It is an annual fine.
Posted by Hman23 at 12/03/2007 @ 5:56pm
Kucinich's set of ideas are probably too advanced for the bulk of the public to realize, accept and make theirs. But most of the blame for Kucinich's lack of acceptance is on his image. I've said this at least once before. He does not project a winner image, but instead a somber and criticize-everything image. He needs to make much more happy faces and sell that what he says is in the realm of the possible, making positive statements all the time. Probably his "low tone" participation is the reason why the big press does not invite him. I hope the best for him in this aspect.
The other is of course is the financing side which might be feeble compared with the leading candidates.
But that his polling is 4% does NOT mean his ideas should not be considered. The very definition of democracy comprises the free discussion of ideas. Most of the time the boldest ideas are the best because they are not prejudiced with the previous "screening" of the advisors that have by themselves already a set of fixed ideas and - most likely - want also to please big business.
Posted by Frank42 at 12/03/2007 @ 6:16pm
"...has anybody ever figured up how many people will be thrown out of work from the private insurance industry if it was eliminated..." Mask
Well, maybe they can get jobs sequestering carbon, or recycling plastic bottles, or something else that actually benefits society as opposed to the socially parasitic insurance system.
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/03/2007 @ 6:24pm
Posted by FRANK42 12/03/2007 @ 6:16pm
It's not that his ideas are "too" realistic, they're simply not feesible.
ie. Department of Peace would not work. If you don't believe me read the ill-fated history of the Sung Dynasty during the 5th(?) century b.c.e.
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2007 @ 6:28pm
"...has anybody ever figured up how many people will be thrown out of work from the private insurance industry if it was eliminated..." Mask
Well, beyond the fact that no strangling of the HMOs can take place without an expansion of the government sector which would absorb many of those people, we can actually anticipate a multiply positive effect. If the US adjusts to the levels of GDP spending for health of France or Germany, this would bring a drop in healthcare costs from 13 to 14% of the GDP to 9 or 10% of the GDP. This 4% suddenly becoming available to American citizens and businesses would directly boost the economy and provide the necessary jobs. Now if you also cut your aircraft carrier fleet from 12 to 4 and your submarines to at least half and do the same thing for most of your armed forces, renouncing the right to place your canons off other countries' coasts anywhere around the world, you would still have a great army, navy and airforce for humanitarian intervention AND billions upon billions to pour into domestic programs. But I am sure the dems are as unlikely as the repugs to ever consider turning the US into a "normal," "non-bullying" state. Meanwhile this type of cost cutting would allow you to keep taxes low so that you can keep the repugs happy (Not that I think anyone should strive to keep the republicans happy in general. I anticipate fear-mongering and statements regarding how the US is really needed around the world as a response to that). MASK will ask where we will employ the fired soldiers but I do not need to say, I hope, that there is no more wasteful spending than military spending. You just spend the money in the economy directly and avoid army pork while generating direct wealth in the US. Maybe you can create this new "green" economy that will keep the US abreast of others around the world and forestall further outsourcing.
Posted by dimik72 at 12/03/2007 @ 8:13pm
...and then I woke up.
oh but it was nice as a dream
Posted by dimik72 at 12/03/2007 @ 8:14pm
Nice post, and great rejoiner, DIMI!
Don't listen to MASK's "he's not popular enough" Kucinich rant... Dennis's career is based on integrity, not polls. He has repeatedly stood his ground until the public has come around... and he repeatedly stands the test of time. Either the people realize this now... or later... and, I think that Dennis understands this better than most.
On the subject of Clinton and Obama, I found this article by non other than Karl Rove... and I'm sure you will find that it 'speaks for itself'...
Memo to Obama: win Iowa or lose the race By Karl Rove Published: December 2 2007 22:00 | Last updated: December 2 2007 22:00 TO: Senator Barack Obama
FROM: Karl Rove
SUBJECT: How to Beat Hillary
Not that you have asked for advice, but here it is anyway: Iowa is your chance to best her. If you do not do it there, odds are you never will anywhere. You are way behind her in most national polls. The only way to change that is to beat her in Iowa so people around America take another look at you. You did a smart thing organising effectively in the early primary states. But you can take advantage of that only if you win Iowa and keep her from building an overwhelming sense of invincibility and inevitability.
Q&A: The race for the White House
Put your questions to Karl Rove about all aspects of the US presidential race in a live Q&A on Friday December 7 from 2-3pm GMT.
The good news is you have again got "the buzz". Polls are looking better for you in Iowa and the other early states. Your press is improving, with your performance at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner a big help. Hillary Clinton has made unforced errors. But she is still the frontrunner and there are several things you need to do quickly to win.
First, stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson. Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way.
Hillary may come over as calculating and shifty but she looks in control. You, on the other hand, often come over as weak and ineffectual. In some debates, you do not even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look as if you are afraid of her. She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise.
Take the exchange in the Philadelphia debate about Bill and Hillary keeping documents hidden about her role as first lady in his White House. She was evasive. You spoke next. You would have won a big victory if you had turned to her and said: "Senator, with all due respect, you and your husband could release those documents right now if you wanted to. Your failure to do so raises questions among a lot of Americans about what you're hiding and those questions would hurt our party if you were our nominee." But your response was weak as dirty dishwater. Do not let other great opportunities pass by.
Second, focus on the fact that many Democrats have real doubts about Hillary. They worry she cannot win, will be a drag on the ticket and that if she got to the White House it would be a disaster. You know better than most what they are worried about; they have told you their fears. It is why you have done so well raising money from Bill's backers and gaining support from Clinton administration officials. Talk about those doubts. Put them in a bigger context than just the two of you. Remind primary voters that these shortcomings will hurt Democratic chances.
Third, when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand. For example, you attacked her for lacking foreign policy experience. It is true she was first lady, not secretary of state, and nobody will ever mistake her for James Baker III. But your qualifications are even thinner; you were a state senator and lived in Indonesia when you were six. Big deal. Americans think she has more foreign policy experience than you – and she does.
Fourth, when you disagree with her be clear about what you believe. You cannot afford more garbled responses like the one you gave in Las Vegas on drivers' licences for illegal aliens. Answer yes or no. Do not give voters evidence you are as calculating as her.
Fifth, you need to do a better job explaining what kind of change you represent. The change theme is a good one and Democratic voters know you were against the war and represent the idea of something fresh. But they do not know who you really are, what you want to do and where you want to take the country. Taking her down a few notches is step one; telling people who you are is the next. Both are necessary.
Sixth, find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on. The toughest candidate in the field should not be able to complain when others disagree with her. This is not a coronation. Democrats do not like her sense of entitlement. She is not owed the nomination. It does not belong to her simply because her name is Clinton. So blow the whistle on her when she tries to become a victim. Do it with humour and a smile and it will sting even more.
Hillary comes across as cold, distant and conspiracy-minded, more like Richard Nixon than her sunny, charming husband. During the Clinton presidency she oversaw a disaster (the effort to sell Hillarycare) and argued hard against welfare reform, one of the promises on which he had campaigned. She is a hard-nosed competitor with a tough and seasoned staff.
But her record is weak, her personality off-putting and her support thin. If she wins the nomination it will be because her rivals – namely you – were weak when you confronted her and could not look her in the eye when you did. She is beatable but you have to raise your game. Iowa is your great chance for a breakthrough. Win it convincingly and you can build on it in the contests that follow. Lose it and victory becomes much more difficult.
The writer is former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush and advised on his 2000 and 2004 presidential election campaigns
Posted by ttr at 12/03/2007 @ 8:37pm
The Link...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dee0a6e8-a109-11dc-9f34-0000779fd2ac.html
Posted by ttr at 12/03/2007 @ 8:49pm
Posted by TTR 12/03/2007 @ 8:37pm
Not bad advice, but concerned that Rove wants Obama to win since he ain't rooting for a Democratic president. Maybe it's just personal between him and Hillary, but it gives me the creeps hearing Rove advise Obama.
I don't think Democrats are as worried about Hillary not winning a general election as they are about her policies IF she wins. If she really turns out to be Bush-Cheney Lite as expected, then we really haven't changed much by electing her.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/03/2007 @ 8:52pm
Posted by DIMIK72 12/03/2007 @ 8:13pm
Sorry...has Dennis Kucinich proposed a "jobs re-training program" or "dislocation fund" for the insurance workers?
Or has he been so busy talking about how he'll ELIMINATE a large industry (as well as demonizing it), and not CARED MUCH about the employees of said industry (the Execs will Golden Parachute out...but where's Dennis' concern for the low-level guys?)?
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2007 @ 9:08pm
Don't listen to MASK's "he's not popular enough" Kucinich rant... Dennis's career is based on integrity, not polls. He has repeatedly stood his ground until the public has come around... and he repeatedly stands the test of time. Either the people realize this now... or later... and, I think that Dennis understands this better than most.----Posted by TTR 12/03/2007 @ 8:37pm
Dennis may be proven right in the annuls of history...but what has he actually DONE in his time in Congress? Not "proposed"...not "brought up"...not "spoken forcefully on, where few other Dems have"...
but ACCOMPLISHED?
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2007 @ 9:09pm
Or better yet, MASK... what has Congress accomplished?
Speaking of polls and approval ratings... is Congress's still in 'double digits'?
Posted by ttr at 12/03/2007 @ 9:27pm
Posted by DIMIK72 12/03/2007 @ 8:13pm
here are the top 10 (oops the new list is out and the u.s has fallen from 8 to 12, so we'll do top 12) countries on the un development list, their corresponding % of gdp spent on health care, and per capita health care costs:
Iceland 9.9% $4,413
Norway 9.7% $5,404
Australia 9.6% $3,123
Canada 9.8% $3,037
Ireland 7.2% $3,234
Sweden 9.1% $3,532
Switzerland 11.5% $5,571
Japan 7.8% $2,832
Netherlands 9.2% $3,441
France 10.5% $3,464
Finland 7.4% $2,664
United States 15.4% $6,096
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?countrie s=all&indicators=nha
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2007 @ 9:47pm
Posted by DIMIK72 12/03/2007 @ 8:13pm
Question for you DIMI, what if the government doesn't absorb the "displaced" insurance workers, then what?
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2007 @ 9:55pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/03/2007 @ 9:47pm
Does the article you mentioned distinguish between "basic" or "comprehensive" healthcare? There's a huge difference.
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2007 @ 10:01pm
Does the article you mentioned distinguish between "basic" or "comprehensive" healthcare? There's a huge difference
Posted by ACOOK 12/03/2007 @ 10:01pm
well, in most of those countries, it's pretty comprehensive.
i assembled the stats from the two u.n. sources as given in the posted links.
it's raw and it's macro,
but the tendencies are clear.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2007 @ 10:11pm
Sorry...has Dennis Kucinich proposed a "jobs re-training program" or "dislocation fund" for the insurance workers? Or .... has he ... not CARED MUCH about the employees of said industry ... Posted by MASK
Question for you DIMI, what if the government doesn't absorb the "displaced" insurance workers, then what? Posted by ACOOK
Not to worry, folks! Yes, the proposed legislation covers that topic well. In fact, my impression is that it might cover it too well, which you might also complain about. Sigh ...
Posted by RCH at 12/03/2007 @ 11:01pm
Does the article you mentioned distinguish between "basic" or "comprehensive" healthcare? There's a huge difference
Posted by ACOOK 12/03/2007 @ 10:01pm
What's important is what is planned for the U.S. The proposed legislation for what we'll get in health insurance coverage is definitely comprehensive.
Take a look at what single-payer national health insurance provides [99oh9.org]. Perhaps equally or more important, take a look at what single-payer national health insurance eliminates [99oh9.org].
Posted by RCH at 12/03/2007 @ 11:12pm
There is in Egyptian hieroglyphics a symbol, with two arms up, if I remember correctly it's meaning being that what is deepest, in and on ones heart and mind, ones focus as it were, becomes what is on ones tongue, first. Turn certain questions around. Notice how there can be "arguments" for what to do about the proposed and assumed jobless, but all one can do about the dead is, hopefully, bury them ... Spin the question round the other way. How many Americans are you (I say you, because I already know my answer to be, none ...), willing to have die so someone can keep their ostensibly parasitic, in point of fact, more harm than good, job(s)?
Let us have the American College of Physicians cut through some of the knee jerk chatter.
No Health Insurance? [acponline.org]
Deal with the sick and the dying first, then find jobs, if need be. Though the ones most against Universal Healthcare are usually the first, to get more than a tad twitchy in regards to "letting the market take care" of things, when it's suits them, or more so, their unmentioned but always present (actually masters, but such is life ...)"betters." As most that I hear responding to the "market forces" clarion call, are but functionaries, working by conditioned instinct, and opinion. Indeed, "Americans don't think, they have opinions" was said about the lesser functionaries. Lesser as the speaker being closer to his masters, was an actor in the theater of control.
How many dead are worth, insecure as it is, entre, into the middle class? Tens of thousands by the concerns, evidenced by the questions, asked here ...
Posted by V at 12/04/2007 @ 03:05am
Posted by TTR 12/03/2007 @ 9:27pm
Dems have held Congress for 11 months, TTR. Be fair and say Bush might veto it, the question remains...
What bill of Dennis Kucinich origin have they passed? They got the impeachment to the Judiciary Comm....but that's because REPUBLICANS wanted to embarass the leadership and try to get an issue the Dems don't want to deal with out in the forefront.
But Kucinich has NO real influence over legislation...even in a Congress under his Party's control.
So why take him serious as a Presidential candidate? Especially when DEMOCRATS only support him 3-5%?
Posted by Mask at 12/04/2007 @ 09:26am
Posted by V 12/04/2007 @ 03:05am
Can anybody translate this gibberish and rambling into English?!?!?!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/04/2007 @ 09:27am
Plain Bruce:
Please direct me to the Swedish report you are referring to. I would be cautious if per chance it came from the "bible,"... sorry the Economist (pathetic attempt at humor here). If what you report is accurate maybe the presence of cheap and available state services forces the private sector to actually compete. Also they probably offer different things. High-end elective stuff in one, all the rest in the other. It may indeed be that the state hospitals are expensive in performing plastic surgery. Medical systems do not only do surgery, however, this is their minority business. There is all the small day-to-day stuff which could easily not be covered by the "private" sector of Sweden. But I will wait for your evidence.
Now, as per MASK's question regarding retraining. Well I am not sure he has, but in that he is very American. Let the market do it. And you know that should be the answer to the opponents of the plan who trust the market so much. They never had a problem shutting down state programs and trusting the market to employ the people having jobs there. The new leaner lighter economy will I am sure absorb them. Though I am sure Dennis has something on unemployment benefits for those in need and the lot. Mind you I did not write that to deal with Dennis, but with a debate. Occasionally one just needs to talk. Thanks for the forum.
p.s. BTW the EU has passed something (directive, action plan I am not sure) on "flexicurity." The Danish deregulation of job markets combined with ultra-strong safety net, education, retraining, and unemployment benefits seem to have won over. Sarkosy apparently is a great fan of the system (which does not make me happy, but I state it as a fact). This is what the US would find easier to adapt to. Build the net and then keep the economy as unregulated in labor relations as it actually is now. Still it requires a decision. Need to spend on more than the excellent US elite universities, and massively on health-care and re-training. Education is the new industry in the end.
Posted by dimik72 at 12/04/2007 @ 12:46pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/04/2007 @ 10:49am
No, he's LaRouche Youth Movement...they train them to speak in rhetoric so garbled and stream-of-conscious, so that they sound smart, but are actually nuts.
Posted by Mask at 12/04/2007 @ 1:08pm
Posted by DIMIK72 12/04/2007 @ 12:46pm
Two points---
"Let the market do it. And you know that should be the answer to the opponents of the plan who trust the market so much."
So you believe in "let the market do it" when it suits you??? Okay, why not with health care?
"Though I am sure Dennis has something on unemployment benefits for those in need and the lot."
Okay...what is it? Or are you just guessing that a kind, compassionate guy MUST have come up with something???
Posted by Mask at 12/04/2007 @ 1:11pm
Wow saw her on ABC, and I must say, she is a true scum bag cunt liberal that will be the death of America.
Posted by drgrzz at 12/04/2007 @ 1:32pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/04/2007 @ 10:49am | ignore this person
Yes I have an unlimited grant but it's not from a university. And are you really that reading and comprehension challenged, or are you just co-signing for mask? Either case is just sad.
Posted by MASK 12/04/2007 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person
I have no relationship with said youth movement, as you know I don't.
You understood exactly what I meant, the moral compromise you engage in, to deliberately misconstrue meaning is what makes you such a negative integrity penult ament whore. With an equal parts infantile, and morally corrupt, pathological, need for attention.
If the adoptive agency, could see your posts here they would never let you anywhere near a child.
Posted by V at 12/04/2007 @ 2:25pm
Posted by V 12/04/2007 @ 2:25pm
LOL! Too old for the chorus, these days, huh, V?
Oh, okay...you're your own man.
Just to show they haven't given you the "Raymond Shaw/Jeremiah Duggan" treatment...care to name 4-5 things you DISAGREE with Maximum Leader Lyndon on?
Posted by Mask at 12/04/2007 @ 3:22pm
You come sideways, crab like, when your shill sensibilities are seemingly overwhelmed. I spose that it is not easy, being cheesy, or, letting opinion rule in the place of truth, even if you do give them the weight of prophecy. Some think, and rightfully so, that you are paid to do what you do. As here, (stream of consciousness is used to fracture idea and hypothesis, to mimic the schizoid) you make case the exact opposite of what is stood for. But no, as you, at worst, but provide the best advertisement for what you try to deprecate, you, are simply lacking in character. And you disparage, any semblance of that which you lack.
You also know that I won't give you the satisfaction of even pretending, to dignify your idiot (were it not so stupid, I would do it just to be rid of you ...) assertion, which is why (craving for attention even if it's so negative, as to be but spittle) you do it. So, no more pearls for you little piggy. You've enough attention today. Make up lies (for you, the more crass the better) show your backside in another post, on the morrow ... perhaps then. Anything else I post here will be related to the subject (of great import) at hand.
Posted by V at 12/04/2007 @ 5:37pm
"They never had a problem shutting down state programs and trusting the market to employ the people having jobs there."
Posted by DIMIK72 12/04/2007 @ 12:46pm | ignore this person
No, they do not.
Posted by V at 12/04/2007 @ 5:46pm
Q: On health care?
KUCINICH: My proposal is to have a universal single-payer, not-for-profit health care system, because that would lift tens of millions of Americans out of poverty.
Q: Harry Truman proposed that in 1948.
KUCINICH: Well, and you know what? John Conyers and I introduced the bill in this Congress. And that would provide all coverage for everyone, all medically necessary procedures, plus vision care, dental care, mental health care, and long-term care.
Q: In other words, socialism?
KUCINICH: What we have now is predatory capitalism which makes of the American people a cash crop for the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. And so I'm talking about a change.
full text
Posted by V at 12/04/2007 @ 5:53pm
As a retired physician who is ashamed of the health care system in the United States, as compared to thosew in France, Germany, Sweden, I would urge that we all support Physicians For A National Health Plan, a 20 year old organization, of 15,000 physicians. We support universal, single payer health care and are responsible for HR 676. Familiarize yourselves in depth with the plan at: www.pnhp.org.
S.R.Keister M.D.
Posted by Keister at 12/04/2007 @ 7:13pm
Posted by KEISTER 12/04/2007 @ 7:13pm | ignore this person
Thank you.
Posted by V at 12/04/2007 @ 9:40pm
How can either candidate implement her or his plan without the consent of Congress? Is it not true that one candidate could be elected and that congress could enact the plan of the loser? I was taught that Congress legislates and that the President executes.
Posted by outrider4 at 12/05/2007 @ 12:12am
As some one who pays $3300 (three thousand three hundred) each month for health insurance to cover myself and my wife I am looking forward to real health care and health insurance reform. I expect our premiums to rise greatly next year when my wife turns 60. We are a small group of two - a business group.
Real health care reform is wanted by the majority of the country and the offering of the top three are only cosmetic. In the rest of the world these plans would be considered obscenely obsolete and a move far to the right.
If the dems won't address these issues we probably need another party that will.
Posted by FMason at 12/05/2007 @ 5:00pm
Why do progressives seem allergic to cost containment measures other than "efficiencies" or "economies of scale;" is it so bad to use "market incentives" to encourage some semblance of consumer discipline? How about making the costs transparent rather than opaque? How about making the co-pay bear some relation to the actual cost of the procedure, especially for elective procedures? How about a surcharge on the co-pay for any drug advertised to the general public?
Posted by cchildress at 12/05/2007 @ 10:52pm
I am surprised that the difficulty of going directly to a one-payer system was not mentioned. Edwards has said that there has to be a transition step. The health insurance industry and the number of employees is huge, so going to one-pay in one step is just not realistic. Also not mentioned, is the fact that Edward's plan does include a single-payer, non-profit plan as a choice. Edwards is a leader who can problem solve and make things happen. He has the experience of taking on corporations and winning against the odds.
Posted by mararmstrong at 12/06/2007 @ 05:56am