Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Clintons say Barack Obama is flip-flopping on single-payer healthcare. He supported such a plan in 2003, they say, and opposes it now. They've released this video, splicing clips of Obama in '03 with footage of Obama at Monday's debate, as proof.
Time for a reality check. Once again, Clinton is attacking Obama for a position that she herself holds--and in doing so, is twisting Obama's words and fudging the context.
"What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn't have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system," Obama said on Monday. That's the exact same position advocated by John and Elizabeth Edwards and many of the leading healthcare experts in the Democratic Party.
"Single payer is not going to pass in this country," Elizabeth Edwards said in June 2007. "It is not going to happen. We may get to single payer, but we are not going to jump to single payer. John is in favor of bold moves about a lot of things, but we have to be realistic and the point is to get people covered."
Edwards made the same point at a campaign stop in Derry, New Hampshire, on January 6. "There are a lot of benefits to single payer," Edwards said. "There's a cost efficiency that doesn't exist with private insurance companies, there's no question about that." But Edwards said "what I want to do is get everybody covered," and combining private insurance plans with a government option would be the quickest and fastest way to cover everybody.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, arguably the leading liberal critic of Obama, agrees with both Obama and Edwards on single-payer. "In an ideal world, I'd be a single-payer guy," Krugman wrote in October. "But I see the chance of getting universal care, imperfect but fixable, just a couple of years from now. And I want to grab that chance."
It's perfectly legitimate to argue, as The Nation and others have, that single-payer is the only path to real universal healthcare and elected politicians should do everything in their power to push for it. But if any Democrat is at fault for making single-payer a politically radioactive issue, it's Hillary Clinton.
Back in '93 labor unions and healthcare experts urged the Clintons to adopt single-payer as the backbone of her healthcare plan. They refused, opting instead for a 1,000 page "managed care" plan, meant to appease the private sector, that was doomed to fail. Fifteen years later we're still debating universal healthcare, and the Clintons are still spinning defeat as victory.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
It'll happen...unfortunately.
All the "little fixes" won't be "enough" and eventually it'll get so screwed up that single-payer will be the ONLY "solution" left and it'll pass (narrowly, but still pass).
And then we all get to enjoy the rationing, the long lines, the over-worked doctors (i.e. those that don't bail to "private spas" where Ms vanden Heuvel and friends will be going for a tune-up)...
but it'll be "fair" and "everybody will be covered"....joy!
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 3:05pm
Making healthcare LESS PROFITABLE is what gets us to Single Payer. This is why Obama has focused on the affordability issue rather than mandates.
By making healthcare more affordable, HMOs are "forced" to give up more profits. As they give up more profits, and Medicare expands coverage, the government is left as the only payer in the system!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/23/2008 @ 3:15pm
HAPPY Says: If I were starting from scratch, if we didn't have a system in which the Fed Gov't robs Peter to pay Paul Sr. on Social Security, I would probably go with individual Private Accounts.
If I were starting from scratch, if we didn't have the present income tax system in which the Fed Gov't reward political insiders w/loopholes while making a monstrosity of our tax codes, I would probably go with a progressive form of Consumption-based tax system.
If I were starting from scratch,.....
Posted by Happy at 01/23/2008 @ 3:20pm
And then we all get to enjoy the rationing, the long lines, the over-worked doctors (i.e. those that don't bail to "private spas" where Ms vanden Heuvel and friends will be going for a tune-up)...
but it'll be "fair" and "everybody will be covered"....joy!
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person
like that gov't health plan that ALL gov't employees have.and like in France< right?
you're out of your mind.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 3:22pm
single payer? yes, my doctor can lay off all those ladies in the office that must navigate the paperwork. and sick people can really expect treatment, instead of the insurance run around. the problem is not just with the uninsured, the insured don't have it so good either. our present system is a disaster.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 3:26pm
and like in France< right?----Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 3:22pm
Key point....
We're not living in France.
American psychology about government largesse completely different (by the way, note a few "troubles" in La France a while back over plans for allowing people to get fired...so THEY're not as self-less about it either!)
Once it starts and it's "free" (i.e. an invisible tax like FICA) but the bennies are being distributed by American politicians trying to buy votes....rationing will be necessary or we go backrupt like we are on spending in Iraq.
Once the pay-outs from the Fed start, the OVERSIGHT and REGULATION for that money will start soon after (necessary to avoid fraud, waste, and abuse) and medical personnel WILL be forced to become bureaucrats by the very nature of the term.
And if you think that Katrina vanden Heuvel is going to go to the "Federal Public Hospital" in Harlem and share a ward with 10 people after surgery....and not one of the INNUMERABLE private hospitals (called "spas" to avoid government control)...YOU are nuts!
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 3:39pm
And if you think that Katrina vanden Heuvel is going to go to the "Federal Public Hospital" in Harlem and share a ward with 10 people after surgery....and not one of the INNUMERABLE private hospitals (called "spas" to avoid government control)...YOU are nuts!
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person
this is complete garbage. single payer does not change the hospital system.know any gov't employees? they are very happy with their single payer. ask grandma how SHE likes her medicare.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 3:45pm
France leads in all measures of health care. the US is what 13th?
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 3:47pm
Let's Go to the Video …
Posted By Editor On January 22, 2008 @ 7:49 pm In Campaign 2008 | 15 Comments
Laura Meckler reports on the presidential campaign.
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going at it over health care again, this time over whether Obama once advocated a single-payer health care plan, a system favored by the left wing of the Democratic Party.
He says he didn't. She says he did.
But she has the proof. His comments are on video, from a speech he gave in 2003 to the AFL-CIO. It's all on YouTube, natch.
On one level, the dispute is sort of irrelevant because, regardless of what Obama said in 2003, the two of them both support a similar approach to insuring Americans today -- a combination of government subsidies and new markets where people can buy coverage. (There is, however, a major dispute today over whether all Americans should be required to buy insurance, though given the range of views on this topic, that's a detail.)
Neither one of them is currently supporting a single-payer system, where -- like Medicare -- the government would be the sole payer of all medical bills, eliminating the role of private insurance companies. Single payer is controversial, but it's the best way to ensure that at least all Americans have health coverage. The only presidential candidate to support something like this is Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
Single payer is supported by many on the left wing of the party, but it's not embraced by the more moderate leaders. At a Democratic debate Tuesday night, Clinton accused Obama of supporting single payer and then backing away. Obama flatly denied it: "I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn't have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system. What's evolved, Hillary, is your presentation of my positions, which is what's happened frequently during the course of this campaign."
But Clinton has the goods to back up her claim. In his 2003 speech, Obama said, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America the wealthiest country in the history of the world … cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody … . A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, we have to take back the House."
Challenged with the apparent contradiction, Obama spokesman Bill Burton produced three recent examples where Obama did in fact say that he would support single payer but only if we were starting from scratch. And he put out this nasty statement: "The Clinton campaign has shown itself willing to say anything, distort anything and twist anything in order to win an election."
When asked to respond to the fact that the video shows that in 2003 Obama held a different view, Burton challenged Washington Wire to get a copy of the full Obama speech and suggested that would show his comments were taken out of context. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer provided the full video and it proved Clinton's point.
Obama tried to use the incident as an example of Clinton manipulating the facts, but it seems clear his campaign is the one doing the twisting. Clinton wants the incident to highlight how Obama no longer supports universal coverage, which she and others believe is not possible without a mandate. On that matter, the debate goes on.
Update: Burton later said that Obama has always been consistent in arguing that single payer health care is a good idea but "is not achievable."
Article printed from Washington Wire - WSJ.com: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire
Posted by frankgrits1 at 01/23/2008 @ 3:57pm
"The position "we cannot have single-payer right now" begs the question (of all the candidates) "Why not, if you are elected, you can do as you choose, in the pursuit of the common good, right?"" :: I imagine it'll take more than just a President to make the jump to single-payer. It'll take congress to enact such legislation...and we all know how united they are on the issue...
Posted by jro555 at 01/23/2008 @ 4:06pm
And then we all get to enjoy the rationing, the long lines, the over-worked doctors (i.e. those that don't bail to "private spas" where Ms vanden Heuvel and friends will be going for a tune-up)... but it'll be "fair" and "everybody will be covered"....joy!
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person
Mask,
You sound very Giuliani-like in dispersing your lie-based healthcare propaganda. Americans wait longer for non-elective surgeries than Germans or Dutch, but less than the British and Canadians. But, this accounting for wait time only includes those people receiving the care they need. Better to wait a little longer than not receive any at all. In America, over the past year, a full 25 percent didn't visit the doctor when sick because they couldn't afford it. Twenty three percent skipped a test, treatment, or follow-up recommended by a doctor. Another 23 percent didn't fill a prescription. (These statistics were reported by Ezra Klein in a Nov. 2, 2007 article in the American Prospect--along with numerous other troubling indicators for American healthcare.) So, here's your rationing, it's called income-based rationing!
Also, before I leave you to your tired, stale syllogisms. Further costs and comparisons of Americans unable to pay for healthcare vs. other nationalities is something I'll spare you from, because it isn't pretty. I will however, mention the inconvenience of our ‘care' and that we lag far behind Australia, Canada, Germany, and New Zealand when measuring evening availability of doctors and same day appointments. We are also the champs in the rate of medical, medication, or lab ‘errors,' which incidentally, is the real cause for the high number of lawsuits, though conservative ideologues like to speciously blame trial lawyers.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/23/2008 @ 4:08pm
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 3:39pm
As long as KVH and Bill Gates (and whoever else has the bucks for "spas") still pay their fair share to the "Universal fund" who gives a rat's red ass? Maybe they can do Ed loan forgiveness for public-serving physician (even a PT - pro-rata type system). As long as we take the health-care for profit out of the predominant equation - which limits needed health care in favor of fattening someone's pockets, then we will almost certainly be better off.
(I mean - the rest of the "civilized" world does it. Can we not learn from the best practices of all these many examples?)
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/23/2008 @ 4:10pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 3:45pm
Again, your argument fails by the elements you put in it...
1. "single payer does not change the hospital system" Of course it will...has to. With EVERYBODY in it, and no insurance, how will the Federal Government make sure that they aren't getting over-charged for MRIs or other expenses? "Price controls"?...okay, then you're back to rationing in the way that price controls ALWAYS lead to rationing.
And with ZERO (not the poster, the number) impetus for folks NOT to go to the Emergency Room for every stomach ache and head cold....and it's "free"...the hospitals will look like MASH units in the Pusan Perimeter.
2. "know any gov't employees? they are very happy with their single payer." Yep, and how many government employees ARE there as a percentage of the American population? You think we just bump it up 10,000% to cover EVERYBODY and the quality and service remain the same???
3. "ask grandma how SHE likes her medicare." And ask the DOCTORS how they like dealing with it. And again, what happens when EVERYBODY is on Medicare and doctors have to fill out that paperwork for EVERYBODY.
BTW, Medicare is going bankrupt. Social Security is fine (Bush was wrong about that and couldn't sell it)...but Medicare/Medicaid is in deep doo-doo.
How you think it's going to do under single-payer? "Better, with a huge client base to draw on...all the predictors say that!"....yes...and "all the predictors" of Medicare in 1965, said that by 1990 it's total budget would be "nine billion dollars"...
it was NINETY billion dollars!
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 4:16pm
one can't really go over this again, that idiot Mask notwithstanding. all we need now is that ass Plain Bruce to show up.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 4:17pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 3:47pm
Okay...can we imitate France on their....energy policy too, then?
75% nuclear I believe is the figure, non?
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 4:17pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 01/23/2008 @ 4:08pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 01/23/2008 @ 4:10pm
You guys seem to miss my original post....note, I say single payer "universal health care"...is INEVITABLE.
I'm not arguing against it because I think I can STOP it....I'm merely throwing the cold water of reality on these dreams of Utopia and "going to the doctor's will be like free tickets to Universal-Orlando".
You guys are going to win...I'm just saying you're not going to get the "prize" you think you're going to get.
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 4:20pm
Can we not learn from the best practices of all these many examples?)----Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 01/23/2008 @ 4:10pm
Can we? What country are we discussing here?
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 4:21pm
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 4:17pm | ignore this person
stick to the subject, asshole.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 4:21pm
BTW, I'm REALLY disappointed that somebody hasn't said...
"Well, it's GOT to be better than now...how much worse can it get?"
and show a total lack of understanding of the American experience and lack of imagination.
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 4:22pm
universal health care was proposed during the Truman administration. we can't afford it. Johnson and Nixon administration ditto, we can't afford it. again and again, we can't afford it. and now? we can't afford it.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:20pm | ignore this person
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 4:23pm
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 4:22pm | ignore this person
post both sides of an argument, why don't you? whattajerk
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 4:24pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:21pm
I am sticking to the subject...AND not being personally insulting (which is usually the sign of someone who has trouble making an argument).
France has an energy policy of 75% nuclear power...this allows them to NOT be effected by the price of energy fuels such as oil and natural gas...thus allowing them greater ease of spending on things like government social programs.
Happy to copy that too.
(Here's where suddenly the argument becomes that we CAN'T imitate France and their wonderful policies)
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 4:25pm
(Here's where suddenly the argument becomes that we CAN'T imitate France and their wonderful policies)
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 4:25pm | ignore this person
you go on arguing with yourself. it's irrelevant to health care what France does energy wise.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 4:28pm
it's irrelevant to health care what France does energy wise.----Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:28pm
No, as I said, it isn't since their energy costs are much lower than ours (in addition to a smaller population with a SLIGHTLY (note the riots a while back) sensibility about largesse).
BTW, any chance you posted here under another nick?
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 4:39pm
I have never posted as nick or another nick.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 4:44pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:44pm
Ahhh...you just INSTANTLY went to ad hominems and insults because you don't like my political views?
'fraid that's even worse....heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 4:51pm
it's your twisting of facts and trying to change the subject that earned the invective. you can have your opinion, just not your own set of facts.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 4:58pm
The fact is, Mask, you did change the subject without answering Outbush's arguments.
And you seem to have this childish belief that just because someone agrees with French health care policy that they must also agree with French energy policy, and foreign policy, and education policy, and so on and so on.
But what the hey, I'll play your game for just a minute, since I've never seen you respond to my answer to your constant pimping for the French nuclear waste industry. Yes, I called it the French nuclear waste industry because apparently France ships tons of unprocessed nuclear waste to Russia every year for "storage." Not quite the utopian solution to everyone's energy problems we might have been looking for, don't you think?
When I first heard about French nuclear waste dumping in Russia, it reminded me of Penn and Teller, clowns and libertarian bullshit artists, who claim we can dump all the nuclear waste we want in Yucca Mountain but whined (well, Penn whined while Teller smirked), that environmentalists hadn't come up with a solution for where we would discard all of the batteries from hybrid cars. "Yucca Mountain, you mother@)%#$&s!" I yelled at the screen.
Posted by cka2nd at 01/23/2008 @ 5:39pm
Posted by CKA2ND 01/23/2008 @ 5:39pm
I answered OUSTBUSH early on....we are not France. We are not the UK. We are not Germany. We are not even CANADA.
And the fact that, as usual, the PSYCHOLOGY of the individual and the society are never taken into account when discussing socialist style policy matters.
Americans will NOT respond as the French, Germans, British, or our ever so nice cousins the Canadians to Government-supplied health care.
And again, let's not fool ourselves or LIE. The Fed will NOT just "hand out a check" to the doctors and hospitals and everything will go on as it has, with no VAST increase in regulation and eventual rationing as the demand for benefits exceeds the economically viable amount of tax revenue that can be raised.
Frankly, one of the reason I'm pretty sure things will be rotten under UHC is the fact that the SUPPORTERS of UHC rarely offer ONE "bad thing" about it, and endlessly talk up all the good things and how it will be damn close to perfection and any "minor reforms" will be easily and quickly enacted.
If you guys didn't try to make it sound so perfect....I'd be less worried.
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 7:06pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:58pm
The immediate leaping to calling people names, and not merely going after their points of opinion...show how insecure you are in your own argument.
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 7:07pm
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 3:05pm
yeah, it'll happen, fortunately...
but sure, typical of the hillbillery rove aping.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 7:25pm
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 7:06pm
Mask, you are correct. My hospital would like nothing more than to dump Medicare/Medicade. The govt is slow to pay and the negotiated rate is a joke. Many posters here think that UHC will put everyone on an even kiel. It won't.
I'm particularly annoyed that so much of the focus is on healthcare coverage and yet no one has bothered to even think about paying the healthcare professionals.
I wonder who here is willing to take a chance on a student doctor or a student nurse in training? How about any medical trainee?
Posted by ACook at 01/23/2008 @ 7:44pm
I'm particularly annoyed that so much of the focus is on healthcare coverage and yet no one has bothered to even think about paying the healthcare professionals.
Posted by ACOOK 01/23/2008 @ 7:44pm
reminds me of my distaste for education and the reason i left it finally.
however i just don't think that the view of healthcare as a big market driven money making scam with huckstering of insurance, prescription drugs, and hospital companies is superior in any way to the supposedly socialistically moribund systems of europe and canada.
our health care system is at least as clunky, wasteful, inefficient, bureaucratically moribund as any of the awful horrible "socialist" systems cited...and apparantly less capable of providing good healthcare to the overall population (though far more capable of enriching corporate fat cats).
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 8:19pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/23/2008 @ 8:19pm
Trust me IBB, I don't like the idea of supporting big insurance companies either, but healthcare isn't cheap. I still get headhunter calls asking if I would be willing to work "overseas" and my answer is always no. With my current salary, I make more as an ICU nurse than many senior physicians in Europe.
Posted by ACook at 01/23/2008 @ 8:45pm
"But come on. The system we have is atrocious."
Posted by ZERO 01/23/2008 @ 8:29pm
You get no argument from me.
Posted by ACook at 01/23/2008 @ 8:46pm
With my current salary, I make more as an ICU nurse than many senior physicians in Europe.----Posted by ACOOK 01/23/2008 @ 8:45pm
And we WON'T be able to pay you that at any of the future Federally-run hospitals....but there WILL be the hospitals that the rich liberals will go to.
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 8:50pm
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 8:50pm
Sad, isn't it?
Posted by ACook at 01/23/2008 @ 9:07pm
so how do the limeys and krauts manage to provide the high quality healthcare they do to their citizenry?
do they have medical schools that end up running hundreds of thousands of dollars to have the priviledge to practice medicine, i wonder?
i just find it kind of funny how so many folks insist that every human endeavor must necisarily involve the possibility of making enough money to live off one's investments, shuffling about one's mansion contemplating mortality until they die in order to attract competant practitioners...
perhaps giving tax breaks to underpaid, underappreciated professions and lessening the "massive bullshit hoop jumping" factor might help...
like in education...sure the pay aint super awesome, but its enough for those who are motivated to teach. its the superfluous geyser of bullshit that drives most teachers out and discourages others who might like to give it a shot.
and as if the pay isnt humble enough, tha average teacher is required to continually plunk out money from his or her own pocket for expensive post graduate education in order to have the priviledge of maintaining a teaching lisence to continue to be underpaid, over bullshitted and used as the kicking dog for every dingdong whose kid is a non-einstein and the ever harrassed superintendent class who struggle to keep their jobs in this idiotic "no child left behind" silliness era...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 9:18pm
I make more as an ICU nurse than many senior physicians in Europe.
Posted by ACOOK 01/23/2008 @ 8:45pm
My older son has a friend, 1 yr out of UT w/nursing degree, makes almost $60k! I was a bit surprised......it equals or bests most engineering Bachelor degrees.
Posted by Happy at 01/23/2008 @ 9:18pm
so how do the limeys and krauts manage to provide the high quality healthcare they do to their citizenry?
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/23/2008 @ 9:18pm
At least one reason is they ain't got many John Edwards.... eliminates lots of `preventive medicines'!
Posted by Happy at 01/23/2008 @ 9:21pm
good luck folks.
i love our medical system.
if you want to cut down costs, STOP EATING BACON (et al.)!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 9:30pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/23/2008 @ 9:21pm |
lol...i still like the guy...but i swear his tv ads remind me of the more high brow versions of those law firm ads...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 9:35pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 9:30pm
canadian bacon?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 9:35pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/23/2008 @ 9:18pm
You should have been paid your worth.
Posted by ACook at 01/23/2008 @ 9:46pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 9:30pm
And stop drinking Canadian Beer.. ;-)
Posted by ACook at 01/23/2008 @ 9:47pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 01/23/2008 @ 9:52pm
I think that's Brannigan up to his old tricks again.
Posted by ACook at 01/23/2008 @ 9:56pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 01/23/2008 @ 9:52pm | ignore this person
4 hour erections and penile explosions! hooooeeee!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 9:58pm
I think that's Brannigan up to his old tricks again.
Posted by ACOOK 01/23/2008 @ 9:56pm
He is. He screwed up. On Ms Valenti's thread on "Roe"....he did the old BRANNIGAN/McQ/MASK2 thing of posting the IP Address as a link to who he was responding to.
Dead giveaway.
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 10:15pm
He is. He screwed up. On Ms Valenti's thread on "Roe"....he did the old BRANNIGAN/McQ/MASK2 thing of posting the IP Address as a link to who he was responding to.
Dead giveaway.
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 10:15pm
Typical lib tactics...create an army of imaginary friends who think exactly like they do, so as not to seem so out of touch.
Let's hope she/he doesn't also vote that way (2 or 3 times).
Posted by Sliver at 01/23/2008 @ 10:43pm
Kucinich:
"HR 676 works: The bill would expand the existing Medicare program so that every person living in the United States and U.S. territories could receive publicly financed, privately delivered health care. Each person would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card with ID number.
Services include inpatient and outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long-term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment.
Under this act, there will be no co-pays or deductibles. Everyone has their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices.
To fund the system, the act would repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners and establish a 5 percent health tax on the top 5 percent of income earners, a 10 percent tax on the top 1 percent of income earners, and a one-third of 1 percent transaction tax.
There would also be an employer and employee payroll tax of 4.75. Federal and state funding rates for existing health programs would remain unchanged."
Plus another 350,000,000 gotten from not pushing paper around.
Posted by V at 01/23/2008 @ 10:48pm
Posted by SLIVER 01/23/2008 @ 10:43pm
Wow do you believe the bullshit that comes out of your mouth or do you just say stupid things so people will pay attention to you?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/23/2008 @ 10:49pm
That's $350,000,000,000 not $350,000,000 ... sorry.
Posted by V at 01/23/2008 @ 10:50pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/23/2008 @ 9:35pm
well, pork, pizza pops, frozen this, canned that.................
and of course the ultimate oxymoron:
fast food.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 10:56pm
Posted by ACOOK 01/23/2008 @ 9:47pm
actually, most canadian beer you may be familiar with is horrible industrobrew.
did you know molson has amalgamated with coors?
yuck.
we've got great beer, but not that STUFF.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 10:59pm
I think that's Brannigan up to his old tricks again.
Posted by ACOOK 01/23/2008 @ 9:56pm
mold school..............
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 10:59pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 01/23/2008 @ 10:43pm
good point, though my disgust with modern education is based not solely on my experiences in public education.
part of the biggest problem with education in this country is that
a) ultimately there is no real problem - some succeed, some don't. always benn that way, always will be so.
b) the silly expectation that we can somehow guarantee everyone's kid will be a success ultimately destroys the educational system and dilutes quality. strive too hard for unattainable perfection and watch it fall apart. with people outcomes cannot be guaranteed...only inputs.
but at least i can say that no matter how crappy a school a kid may attend...there IS a school the kid can attend and do so regardless of how much money his parents have and therefore all excuses aside the kid has a chance...
i honestly don't think our health care system will come to look like canada's nor europe's...but it would be nice if people had the same access to it they have to primary/secondary education...
i dont expect perfection.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 11:01pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/23/2008 @ 11:01pm
On a different note: 2 schools in the Atlanta area are going to "pay" students $8 an hour to stay after school to get tutoring sessions from their teachers in math and science. Can you imagine? It's a pilot program that's going to cost about $60K. The Atlanta School Board is truly desperate.
Posted by ACook at 01/23/2008 @ 11:29pm
Wow do you believe the bullshit that comes out of your mouth or do you just say stupid things so people will pay attention to you?
Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/23/2008 @ 10:49pm
It's called sarcasm.
And you're right...I just say things so stupid people will pay attention to me.
So...how's it goin?
Posted by Sliver at 01/23/2008 @ 11:30pm
Posted by ACOOK 01/23/2008 @ 11:29pm | ignore this person
$8 an hour? jeez...
why not turn 'em out on the streets and start investing in making the juvenile justice system better?
hell, these days kids get awards for just doing what they should do. when they grow up they think they should be rewarded for showing up to work on time and given a trophy for not doing bad!
no no no...trophy, award, given for doing BETTER than just what you should...no negative consequences for doing what one should/not doing bad!
there's just something inherently un-democratic about a good education.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 11:56pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/23/2008 @ 11:56pm
You see, this is the end result of compromising on education. I seriously doubt any of those kids will benefit in the long run.
Posted by ACook at 01/24/2008 @ 12:08am
t's a pilot program that's going to cost about $60K. The Atlanta School Board is truly desperate.
Posted by ACOOK 01/23/2008 @ 11:29pm |
----------
this is a fine idea.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 12:10am
there's just something inherently un-democratic about a good education.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/23/2008 @ 11:56pm | ignore this person
really? how so?
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 12:28am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 10:59pm | ignore this person
don't forget my other John Wayne movie alias, Rio Bravo.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 12:36am
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/24/2008 @ 12:36am
will you please be BLANCHE DUBOIS tomorrow?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 12:51am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/24/2008 @ 01:00am
hey rio, that's cool. comanche. when you gonna give me classes?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 01:27am
I have my doubts about single payer; for a long time I was in favor of such a plan (I guess I'm a flip-flopper, like Barry-O).
Working quite literally at the threshold of the healthcare system as I do (I am an ER doc), it's been my experience that that we in the US suffer from an entitlement mentality that would only be exacerbated by a single payer system.
Right now, this mentality is most prevalent at the extremes of the spectrum - the very well to do are just as guilty as those on medicaid; the well to do are simply more sophisticated in their approach and perhaps less likely to use inappropriate language, but the attitude of entitlement is just as pervasive. It is only the middle class/those who grew up that way that seem really to understand the value of what they are receiving and are genuinely grateful for it. Make everyone entitled to a 'free' service and I am not sure where we end up.
There are numerous other issues that come into play in renovating our health care system - how do we pay for medical education (i.e. residency training - what do we emphasize, where will they train), how do we level the playing field between rural locations and suburbia and the inner city, how many people of each type (docs, nurses, PT's, OT's, EMT's etc are we going to have), who gets what resources (does every hospital need a PET scanner). This is not as simple as saying ok, you insurance company bastards can go fuck off now and the government is going to run the show.
Posted by skeletonman at 01/24/2008 @ 08:01am
Working quite literally at the threshold of the healthcare system as I do (I am an ER doc), it's been my experience that that we in the US suffer from an entitlement mentality that would only be exacerbated by a single payer system.-----Posted by SKELETONMAN 01/24/2008 @ 08:01am
Which is EXACTLY what I said. All these "Look how well it works in (insert Canada or European country here)...it will work that well HERE too" comments fail to take into account AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGY.
Ultimately it will HAVE to lead to rationing, or we go bankrupt (like we are over Iraq)...and rationing leads to a "black market" economy, in the case of UHC, the GOOD pharmaceuticals and the "spa" hospitals for those who can afford it....."Federal" hospitals and the OLD pharmas for the rest of us.
Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 09:11am
"OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!
For those of you who still have not heard:
There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties and fundraisers. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama. The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.
So please, SPREAD THE WORD!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM
YES WE CAN
Anne
Posted by annevilla at 01/24/2008 @ 09:31am
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 4:20pm & 4:21pm
Mask my friend, to quote clueless leader "I think you misunderestimate us" I did get your original post, and my point was why the doom & gloom assumption? Can we not build a better mousetrap? Your 4:21 seems to indicate not - I say it is indeed within our power. Of course, it means dismantling the insurance industry - but, hey, better that that letting people die because their coverage runs out, or that they are uninsured entirely, right?
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/24/2008 @ 09:33am
Posted by MASK 01/24/2008 @ 09:11am
are you calling americans dumb?
or greedy?
or both?
just asking.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 09:37am
i think you guys could work it out.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 09:37am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 01/24/2008 @ 09:33am
Well, first, SKELETONMAN is the ER doc...and he agrees. So there's a person in the medical field (and no right-winger) who thinks it will degenerate too.
Second...why did welfare reform pass in 1996? Was it "working" and Clinton and the Repubs (and a few Dems) just wanted to destroy it?
Or had IT degenerated and failed to live upto its promises and after years of "It just needs more time and more money", people generally realized that it was a failed system.
So, if we start with an historical example of WIC (from the mid-60s) being reformed (in the mid-90s)....and postulate single-payer UHC sometime in 2010....we'll "only" have to suffer through THIRTY YEARS of a FAILED (not just "47 million uninsured" as we have now) health care system before it finally gets reformed.
Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 10:03am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/24/2008 @ 09:37am
A percentage...yes. And large enough that it will result in some pandering politician demanding more and more and more bennies be added to the "Federal Health Care System" to get votes.
Or folks like Ms vanden Heuvel who want free dental care, and it spirals into free braces and free whitening (to be "fair").
And eventually we run out of money (or start to) and nobody will be willing to pay 90% tax rates....ergo...rationing.
Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 10:05am
Posted by MASK 01/24/2008 @ 10:03am
so what's the solution?
you're going to go bankrupt (except for those very few raking in the cash) with your present "system".
you can't keep going on paying DOUBLE other "advanced" countries per capita for health care and survive..........
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 10:15am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/24/2008 @ 10:15am
FZ, again, first post I made. UHC run by the Fed is inevitable.
I just don't buy it's going to work...and I definitely don't buy that it's going to be BETTER.
Plus, nobody has figured up what we do when we put a MILLION people out of work?
("Huh?" you say...heheh. The EMPLOYEES of the Health Insurance companies we're going to "dismantle" ((Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 01/24/2008 @ 09:33am)). The CEOs will bail out on Golden Parachutes...but what of Joe Smith, agent for Cigna/Wellpoint/Blue Cross? Any concern for what THEY do for a living?)
Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 10:52am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/24/2008 @ 12:51am | ignore this person
ask a French friend what Emile duBois means.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 10:52am
Plus, nobody has figured up what we do when we put a MILLION people out of work?
Posted by MASK 01/24/2008 @ 10:52am
well, they can go to china and look for a job like the rest of us.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 11:23am
well, the manufacturers of steam locomotives were discomforted too.
insurance companies are a diversified lot. they'll make out fine. also there is nothing to prevent folks from buying more health insurance, as many oldsters do now.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 11:27am
Mask, your pessimism is certainly justified. all those countries with single payer, they are all as you describe. and they all can't wait to get rid of their system in order to adopt ours.
right. oh and yes, American Human nature is different from European human nature.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 11:31am
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/24/2008 @ 11:31am
you're right. i want to pay $1,000 a month to insure my family.
that way we won't have to eat anymore and we'll be healthy!
(and so you know, my family used about $500 worth of health services last year, tops)
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 11:43am
Froz, unlike you I DO have to pay a monthly insurance premium, $500+ for two people.
that you have not had to make use of your health insurance is immaterial, you know how this insurance thing works, don't you.
still no report on that cute Cand W song? IT WAS RECORDED UNDER A PSEUDONYM, DONCHA KNOW? sorry about the caps, they are inadvertent.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 11:56am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/24/2008 @ 11:23am
Cute...now....any REAL answer?
Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 12:24pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/24/2008 @ 11:31am
Tell ya what TRUE GRIT, let's get a correction on this...and then we'll discuss your other views of things?
"I have never posted as nick or another nick."----Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/23/2008 @ 4:44pm
Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 12:25pm
I have never posted under the name nick. or under the name another nick.
this is just too delicious.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 12:37pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/24/2008 @ 11:56am
$6,000 a year...........ouch!
detroit city, then [youtube.com]
and now. [youtube.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 12:45pm
Cute...now....any REAL answer?
Posted by MASK 01/24/2008 @ 12:24pm
well, what i'm saying is that no one seems to care about all the manufacturing jobs lost to china.
in fact, i believe you've talked about its "inevitability".........
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 12:47pm
don't forget my other John Wayne movie alias, Rio Bravo.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/24/2008 @ 12:36am
delicious, indeed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 12:51pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/24/2008 @ 12:47pm
Well, that was a long process, FZ, and could have been countered by some creative business plans, which were short in coming. (Particularly, a move to HIGH-end products that would have more quality and more appeal to shoppers with more spending money....AND Big Auto realizing that the "SUV Crunch" was coming...before a year ago, that is).
We're talking about implementing a universal health care system and few talk about a "10 year long phase-in"....and IMMEDIATELY "dismantling" several multi-billion dollar companies (figure in the CRASH of the Stock Market too, as well as financial loans, tax base, etc.)...and the throwing out of work of ATLEAST 500,000 people if not double that.
All in a year or so.
Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 1:03pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/24/2008 @ 12:45pm | ignore this person
this is a discounted rate because we are "low income". on the "free" market it would surely be double that.
did you know that insurance companies hire outside contractors who's job it is to turn down coverage.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 1:10pm
very few here are old enough to remember this but when medicare was proposed the same arguments were thrown about opposing it. worked out pretty good. perhaps some insurance companies had to lay off a few people.
that entire argument about throwing insurance workers out of a job, is the most preposterous. we've lost millions of manufacturing jobs, and hardly anyone gave a rat's ass. that's just globalization we are told.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/24/2008 @ 4:53pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=plain%20bruce
NOT ONE COUNTRY WHICH HAS SINGLE PAYER HAS GIVEN IT UP FOR OUR MESS. not one.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/25/2008 @ 09:19am