What happened to Universal Health Care?

[Neo-wobbly]

We thought we had it; from Hillary "Champion of Health Care" Clinton, to Barack "Change" Obama, Universal Health Care was on the agenda, and there is no way that any Republican could beat that platform against their disastrous handling of the last 7 years.

But wait! The old saying that when things are too good to be true, they usually are, still holds, and wouldn't you know it, the shoe-in winners of the worst landslide victory in a generation don't seem to be landsliding; even the best scenarios show either candidate in a statistical dead heat with McCain. How can this be?

I would like to humbly suggest that twisting the term "Universal Health Care" to mean "mandatory purchase of private insurance" is, and I know this is a stretch, the stupidest thing the Democratic Party has done since they let Ford pardon Nixon.

This is the attitude the Republicans are supposed to have, not Democrats; this is a sop to the insurance companies, and all the rhetoric about "affordable premiums" are just whitewash. What's affordable to a family already having to choose between heating their house and putting food on the table? What good are tax credits to people who don't pay taxes because they don't make any money? And how would they pay for it in the first place?!

No, they have run out in front of a popular movement, and led it into a brick wall, and their policies on Iraq, education, and everything else are the same way: Orwellian doublespeak to hide the fact that they are opposing what they claim to support.

If this were not the case, then why aren't either of the candidates up in arms over the latest news: Hillary went nuclear over a cheap shot at Chelsea, but why isn't she also outraged that the Supreme Court ruled that a woman can't sue her employer for sexual assault and rape because her contract stated that she would go through "arbitration" (her employer picks the arbitrator!)? Obama has stated that the Supreme Court was wrong in their ruling against an integrated school district, but why hasn't he said anything about their rejection of an ACLU lawsuit over illegal wiretapping?

The fact is, neither of them will do anything that would upset their corporate owners campaign contributors, and that means anything that would help you or me.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. Am I correct in presuming this is a hit piece on both our candidates?

[NC_Nurse]

2. Hey, guess what? We never had it.

The candidates are trying to propose changes that will lay the groundwork for
change in the healthcare industry. There is no way that we'll get single-payer yet.
You have to start somewhere.

[susankh4]

There is no way that we'll get single-payer yet.

That is correct. It will be incremental.

The question should be which of the available candidates brings us CLOSER?

The A.N.A. says that would be Hillary. And I agree... unless you now want to consider Ralphie who, as you know, has just jumped into the mix. He will use Universal Healthcare as a major plank in his "platform" )if you want to call it that.)

[harun]

4. I think both of them want actual Single Payer but know the only way

is the incremental approach. This will be the first step.

[Neo-wobbly]

10. First step give all the power to the insurance companies

Second step: "What? We never agreed to that."

[harun]

30. They already have all the power, they are the ones paying the doctors

and nearly writing all the legislature (and lack thereof).

If you get one of insurance options a government run option, then it is the first step. If they squash that then well honestly it isn't even worth changing anything. A government insurance option would be a first step though, no doubt about it.

[Neo-wobbly]

31. One problem:

To make it effective, you have to mandate a buy-in, because otherwise it doesn't work, but there are too many people in this country who can't afford it, no matter how "affordable" you make it; for that matter, they're most of the one who don't have it now.

Prediction: the bill will go to congress, and either get killed by congressmen afraid of alienating voters with the buy-in, or it will get "bought" by the insurance companies, and we'll all have to buy, but there will be no regulation or government option. Oh, and they'll make it illegal to sue them; seems to be a trend, lately.

[harun]

32. I agree in theory, I am not too optimistic about any of it either

In our system it is far too easy to squash anything like this.

I feel H.R. 676 is the right option. I wish someone would have asked Hillary and Obama in the debates if H.R. 676 hit their desk as it is today would they sign it?

Every dem should have been toting H.R. 676 but the MSM vetted those candidates out long ago.....

[NC_Nurse]

12. The California Nurses Union says Barack.

They have been huge supporters of single-payer for a long time.

[susankh4]

16. Can you provide a link?

[NC_Nurse]

17. I have to go right now....you can probably google them.

I have a doctor appt. at 10. Sorry....:hi:

[Neo-wobbly]

6. What groundwork?

We've played this game before; we give in and pass a law to help out the industry, and then the industry gives in and we get our share, except that last part never quite works out, does it? What are car insurance premiums like? What happened to the development NAFTA was supposed to foster? Why is TV worse than before media consolidation? Why didn't the DMCA help out artists? Oh yea! Because the companies cheat!

We can't let them cheat on this one.

[NC_Nurse]

15. What's you plan to get around them and the Republicans?

Regulation is the best way to start. Getting everyone who wants coverage
affordable insurance is a start.

[Neo-wobbly]

18. Did you read my post?

What is "affordable"? How do you "regulate" when they're holding all the cards?

Think about car insurance for a minute.

[JVS]

3. yeah. The solution to our healthcare problem isn't just saying "Go buy insurance"

Should we tell famine victims "Eat something"
Hurricane Katrina victims "Find a place to live"
people who can't afford college "take loans"

This is the dumbest solution to a lack of something since "let them eat cake"

[safeinOhio]

13. Yeah, JVS

forget "Go buy insurance". Lets try " Go buy torches and pitch forks" and "lets meet in the square at midnight". Thats looking more and more like the solution to me.

[Neo-wobbly]

24. Now you know why I oppose gun control :) n/t

[RunningFromCongress]

5. I'd love a single payer system, but I worry it would cripple the econmony...

Putting all those insurance companies out of business could do a lot of damage, no? Does anyone have a link that addresses this?

[Neo-wobbly]

8. WTF?!

1. Every other industrialized nation in the world has single-payer UHC, and none of them can feed themselves.

2. Company does not equal economy; the sooner we figure this out the better.

3. We still need someone to administer all of this stuff while we break it down, and they have a natural path into records-keeping, a segment of the health care industry that is badly in need of help, which they can't do right now because they aren't allowed to see all of their patients records; something else they're fighting for.

[enid602]

20. not so

Actually, France, Germany and the Netherlands have mutiple-payer universal health care. For more, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/18/213620/164/418/387053

[Neo-wobbly]

26. Fair enough, but...

Look at the rules; they all imply a much more progressive social support system (housing, welfare), as well a generally lower cost of living.

To put it another way, you don't need a car in Paris, but in Atlanta...

[RunningFromCongress]

35. I'm really curious about the subject, what would the effects on the economy be?

You'd be putting 10s of thousands of people out of work, I assume the insurance companies pay some sort of corporate income tax so how much of that would leave the economy?

I'm really asking. I don't know what kind of insurance systems France, etc.. had in place when they moved to fully socialized medicine; what were the effects on their economy?

[enid602]

7. health care

Well, I think the first step is to stop spending a trillion a year on war, and step up spending on domestic priorities. You'd be surprised by the gains we could make if our national wealth wasn't being squandered on Bush's projects. As far as Clinton's universal health care scheme, I see no problem with administering it through the insurance companies, provided they are willing to play ball. France has a multiple-payer scheme, and their insurance industry is huge, has many employees and enjoys trememdous political clout. If US insurance companies aren't willing to cooperate (ie, put tremendous profits over

[Neo-wobbly]

9. Again, if either of them were going to stop the war...

... but Clinton wants to build a permanent base, and Obama wants to keep us there "as long as Al-qaeda is there", which, since they're only there because we are there, means forever.

See the problem? :)

[enid602]

14. Iraq

Absolutely; we've got to start spending money on our own economy/infrastructure/populace. As far as getting out of Iraq, it's probably hard for any candidate to propose anything that can possibly hope to retain some benefit for what we'e spent there.

[Neo-wobbly]

22. There's only one solution:

Day one, 8:00 am: Letter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Gentlemen, please draw up plans for withdrawal from Iraq to be implemented within the next 30 days, total withdrawal not to exceed 90 days, resulting in complete withdrawal in no more than 120 days; priorities are, in order: minimum loss of personnel (American and Iraqi), destruction of remaining weaponry (that is, any weaponry we will be forced to leave behind due to time constraints), maximum support of Iraqi civilian population.

Day two, 8:05 am: Letter to the U.N. Secretary General: Due to the grievous harm the policies of the previous administration have caused, we are planning a withdrawal of all forces from Iraq, turning all responsible parties over for trial as war criminals, and recusing ourselves from the Security Council on all related measures...

[doc03]

27. As far as Iraq goes there will be

little if any change from Bush.

[floridablue]

11. Should have voted for Edwards

Clinton is not going to get in that fight again either as President or a Senator. Obama is not going to go near it once elected.

[Neo-wobbly]

19. I never got the chance, sadly n/t

[557188]

33. This is why I hate Obama supporters

If you had supported a real candidate we could've had Universal Health care. Instead you jumped on board an empty suit with buzz words with NO UNIVERSAL PLAN!

[Neo-wobbly]

36. How is that different from Hillary?

I'm not fond of either, just saying.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

34. I did, but in MI his name was spelled "uncommitted"

We're left with the dregs.

Either of which is a little better than McCain, so I'll vote Dem, of course.

[Kitty Herder]

21. Nice post. And I love your name neo-wobbly. nt

[Neo-wobbly]

23. Thanks! n/t

[doc03]

25. The democrats have been talking universal

health care for what 20 years or more. I have come to the conclusion I will never see it in my lifetime, both political parties are bought and paid for by the insurance industry. I think the only way it will ever come about is when people get fired up enough to march on Washington like the protesters back in the 60's did for civil rights and the Vietnam war. Hillary Clinton tried it once and has been demonized ever since and Obama won't get it with his lets just all get along bullshit.

[SIMPLYB1980]

28. Obama threw it under the Buss

Along with over half of the Democratic Base.

[12string]

29. Single payer universal health care

went out the door with that unelectable candidate.You know,the only one talking about real change.Incremental,sure.I have a bridge for sale too.

[leftstreet]

37. Excellent post! n/t

[eridani]

38. We get it by fighting from the bottom up

That might convince either candidate that universal health care is the way to go.