Why Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney and Schwarzenegger Don't Support Single-Payer Health Care

[nosmokes]

another excellent example of why we *must* get corporate money out of elections and stop this nonsense of making the people we want ti represent us beg for handouts more than work on their actual job.
--###--

original-OCA/corporate crime reporter

Why Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney and Schwarzenegger Don't Support Single-Payer Health Care

* The Death of the Health Insurance Industry and Reduced Profits for the Drug Cartel
Corporate Crime Reporter, Posted Feb 24, 2007


The majority of the American people want a single-payer health care system ­ Medicare for all.

The majority of doctors want it.

A good chunk of hospital CEOs want it.

But what they want doesn't appear to matter.

Why?

Because a single-payer health care plan would mean the death of the private health insurance industry and reduced profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

Presidential candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger talk a lot about universal health care.

But not one of them advocates for single-payer ­ because single-payer too directly confronts the big corporate interests profiting off the miserable health care system we are currently saddled with.
~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

[caligirl]

1. and we just might cure a few more diseases, rather than 'treat' them for decades.

[nosmokes]

4. but where's the profit in a cure? silly caligirl.

:hi:

[Tom Joad]

2. No insurance company left behind.

[napi21]

3. I'm sure that's true, but not only those candidates!

It's really no different than those who are pushing for a flat tax which would destroy a big part of the accounting businesses like H&R Block and eliminate at least 3/4 of the IRS employees.

I happen to think we could have both health care systems. A single payer, AND some more expensive private policies for those who had the $$ and wanted much broader coverage for things like elective surgery and enhancements. Unfortunately I don't think anyone has proposed that!

[bvar22]

34. Dennis Kucinich's Plan provides for both.

The single payer HealthCare does NOT forbid private insurance.
The RICH can continue to patronize any Insurance Co that wishes to cover the tummy tucks, face lifts, and lipo that would not be covered under the Medicare for All.

Kooch is the ONLY Candidate that supports the Single Payer Universal HealthCare!


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE. NOW.

Sorry for the caps. But absolutely. The only loser would be the insurance industry; everyone else would win.

Unfortunately, like ending the drug war & legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana, it probably makes way too much sense to ever happen in our lifetimes. Too bad.

Obama has made some nice noise about "health coverage for all", but if you look at his website, there's ZERO substantative, bold ideas. I would say, right now, Edwards seems to be the bravest of the big corporate media approved candidates on this issue.

[Clark2008]

10. Nope - not Edwards.

His plan turns it over TO the insurance companies.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Edit: You answered my question already.

Go Wes! :thumbsup:

[Blackhatjack]

15. What you fail to recognize is that no plan will fix everything once and for all...

... and the goal is to get the 40 million insured right away.

Once that is accomplished, we begin overhauling the system in a manner that will fix it once and for all.

The giant fix is never going to happen. It will take time, political will, public support, and transition to make to a single payer system.

John Edwards has not ruled this out. But if you were one of the 40 million uninsured, I am sure you would be happy with Edwards first steps which would provide you with coverage.

[Trillo]

6. Single-Payer -- H.R. 676

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm
by Reps. John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Jim McDermott and Donna Christensen

[SoCalDem]

7. Money money money money

If the cost of health care was carved out of our bloated budget, and the "middlemen" eliminated, those middlemen would would no longer have billions of bucks to line the politician's pockets..

In real terms it's like being married to a party-animal. Party animal wants to spend the family income of FUN stuff, instead of coring stuff like food, rent, medicine, school stuff,etc..

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. I suspect, and certainly hope that Edwards at least is biding his time.

It's not always good policy to apprise powerful adversaries of your plans before it's necessary and prudent.

[Clark2008]

9. Pssst.... Wes Clark wants one.

http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2006/01/wes_clark_wants_single_payer_h.htm

[cadmium]

13. This is a good one statement. Do you

think Wes is running? The major candidates who are declared are all pretty close with a call for universal access--through insurance companies.

[Blackhatjack]

17. Nice! Clark's 'plan' is one paragraph long .... LOL

[Selatius]

12. The Democratic Party often, but not always, serves as the left wing of the Corporatist Party

There are a few outliers like Dennis Kucinich, but they are the exceptions of the rule.

[Vidar]

18. Sadly true.

[cadmium]

14. single payer makes common sense but insurance companies are

major employers. They command a larger share of our economy now with industrial base deteriorating. Ironically manufacturing work in the US would probably increase if the cost of health insurance was taken out of the hands of US companies, but think about what a massive shift this would be. A lot of middlemen would be out of work. In reality I think that the incremental plans are the ones with the best chance. The motivation in Mass was because health care is big business here and our largest employer. The Hosital Association loses money providing free care and pushed the state. The system we came up with was brokered by the state with led by the hospital association--especially the big hospital groups, the state Department of Transitional Assistance, and Blue Cross.

[Blackhatjack]

16. Edwards is no shill for the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies....

They did not give millions to stop his campaign and at the same time support him putting forth this plan to immediately insure 40 million presently uninsured.

BTW I have yet to see any plan from Clark, and wanting one is merely wishful thinking. If he wants to be taken seriously, let him spell out the specifics of his plan for people to pour over and criticize.

However, I doubt we will see that unless he announces he is running for President, at which time he will be under the gun to provide such a plan.

[fed-up]

19. SB 840 (CA) is being reintroduced on Tues-we're doing a fundraiser 3/1

to raise money for our April 14th event which is part of the 365 city campaign/rally for single payer, universal health care in California

[Porcupine]

30. It really needs to go on an initiative.

I just can't see it getting past the legislature and Arnold. The repukes would block it if the gropenfurher wasn't promising to veto it again.

Of course we'll get no coverage from the news on this either.

[gravity]

20. I don't think single payer health care is politically feasable

With single payer, you are forcing people away from private insurance, which they might prefer over single payer system.

I am personally against the single payer system right now. I would like to see a government insurance program for all people which directly competes against the private insurance. I believe this way, the public would get the best from both systems.

[Cleita]

22. And we have that. It's known as Medicare and there is no

reason that the government can't restore the benefits the Republicans have taken away from it over the years and sell it on the open market in direct competition with the private insurance companies.

Of course, they will object because they can't compete with non-profit program that actually uses most of it's funding for actual health care and only spends 2% to 3% a year on administrative costs.

Of course the part "D" prescription benefit is bleeding Medicare dry because the PHARMS industry can charge what they want for medication. There is no bargaining for prices allowed like every other country in the world does. So I am all for the additional money being brought in from selling to companies and unions.

Medicare properly administered and funded works quite well and doctors like it because they don't have to fight for every penny in fees like they do with the private insurers and HMO's. Actually, in my burg very few doctors even accept private insurers and HMOs.

[sandnsea]

31. Part B starts at $93.50

and is $162.10 for those earning over $200,000. There are also deductibles of around $1000, along with the Part D donut hole. Plus the 2.9% tax we all pay to fund just 30-40% of medical spending. Then there's the complaints by doctors and hospitals on reimbursement rates. Medicare is not a solution to our health care problems.

[Cleita]

32. The figures you have brought up are what has happened

because of a decade of mostly Republican control of Congress and specifically Newt Gingrich's long reaching plan to destroy so-called entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. His policies are still in effect although he is no longer in the House.

Breaking the back of the system is part of the plan with below the market compensation of caregivers, and now the candy store gift to big PHARMA at the expense of Senior citizens of part "D", which is rapidly defunding the program because drug prices aren't negotiable like they are in other countries of the world.

Those problems can be fixed by cutting out the privatized middle men in health care, the insurance industry, the HMO industry and defanging big PHARMA. Our liberal legislators like Edward Kennedy have the vision to make this work. Medicare is still preferred by doctors to most insurance and HMO plans that even undercut Medicare disbursements. In my area most doctors will not take any of the well known health care insurers like Blue Cross for miserable repayment but will still take Medicare.

Also FYI, I have to pay $212.00 a month to a private insurance carrier for Medi-gap in addition to the $93.50 a month for Medicare. I refuse to partake in part "D" out of protest. So this is over $300 a month that I have to cough up on an income that is less than $20,000 a year. However, I can manage it yet. Imagine if I had to buy Medicare from a private carrier. It would eat into my income so badly, I could say hello, homelessness.

Now also with Medicare the bureaucracy is already in place and operates at a 2% to 3% efficiency in administrative costs compared to the 8% to 30% in administrative costs of the privatized industry. With the accounting expenses of caregiver providers because the billing would be to only one payer, the lowered overhead could compensate for the lower payments. Also, the infusing of new money with everyone participating would help refund Medicare to extend better coverage.

I'm not talking through my hat because every industrialized country in the world has already proved that this system is workable and better than ours.

[Telly Savalas]

23. This isn't necessarily true.

In Ontario, OHIP covers most medical procedures. There would be no reason to prefer private insurance for such procedures, because there's already total coverage paid for with one's taxes.

For things that OHIP doesn't cover, private insurance steps in to provide supplemental coverage.

[eridani]

26. What value does private insurance add?

Nothing whatsoever. It subtracts value. Its purpose is to take money from healthy people and give it to their stockholders. Public insurance takes money from healthy people and uses it to take care of sick people.

[Cleita]

33. Bingo and you speak the truth. Anything else is apologies for

the greedy privatized system.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Tricare Prime works very well thank you

and it could be a model

Let me ask you this, you are aware that Canada spends half per capita to what we spend per year, and they have far better outcomes?

The propaganda is amazing, and it is amazingly hard to get away from it until you look under the hood

[Cleita]

21. In Arnold's case he vetoed a universal health care plan that

was supported by the people of California and passed in both houses of the legislature. No wonder because he gets half his campaign contributions from the insurance industry and the health care industry.

[Dude_CalmDown]

24. Wasn't Hillary one of the big proponents of Single-Payer health-care back in 92?

I was 12 then so let me know if I'm wrong.

[eridani]

25. Most certainly not!

Her plan was to shovel huge amounts of taxpayer money to big insurance companies, and to beg them to pretty please cover more people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Nope

What she wanted was partial health care, not fully a single payer system

In the US a single payer system is anathema to the industry, and even then what she proposed was seen only as a first step, that is why they went out of their way to defeat it

[Strawman]

35. No

I think the plan she endorsed involved pooling insurance buyers into health insurance purchasing cooperatives to presumably have more leverage to negotiate with private insurance companies. I can't remember to what extent the uninsured were folded into that system or how universal it was in its design, but it wasn't single payer. There were fewer payers, but not a single payer.

[Porcupine]

29. just follow the money. They've sold out.

Nader is essentially right about the two party dictatorship in America. We don't have a chance of getting a candidate with our interests foremost.

I'm fighting for the pig with the least lipstick on it at this point.

[WorldResident]

36. Hillary brought universal healthcare to the forefront and got burned for it. Don't you forget that!

n/t

[durrrty libby]

37. Which proves we are are own worst enemy