DEMS CHOOSE 'GUARANTEED COVERAGE' OVER SINGLE-PAYER PLANK

[Phred42]

The Dems have sold us out...sorrry compromised us out. Bending over for Big Pharma dn the Insurance Companies - again

You'll still have Bills from Doctors, Insurance Companies, Hospitals etc "....but they would get help when needed."


We need to elect Democrats rather than these republican-lite DLC and Blue Dogs.


Guaranteed Health Care Key Plank in Democrat’s Platform
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/11/10923/

PITTSBURGH - Democrats shaped a set of principles Saturday that commits the party to guaranteed health care for all, heading off a potentially divisive debate and edging the party closer to the position of Barack Obama’s defeated rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The party’s platform committee moved smoothly through a range of issues for the fall campaign and approved a document that will go to the Democratic convention in Denver later this month for adoption.

There was little dissent - or room for it - in the day’s meeting and a compromise on health policy took one flash-point off the table.

Obama, soon to be the Democratic nominee, has stopped short of proposing to mandate health coverage for all. He aims to achieve something close to universal coverage by making insurance more affordable and helping struggling families pay for it.

Advisers to Obama and Clinton both told the party’s platform meeting they were happy with the compromise, adopted without opposition or without explanation as to how health care would be guaranteed.

In return for the guarantee, activists dropped a tougher platform amendment seeking a government-run, single-payer system and another amendment explicitly holding out Clinton’s plan as the one to follow

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On a Happier note:

Here is an organization dedicated to doing the right thing!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Citizens Alliance for National Health Insurance
http://www.hr676.org/

THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF HR676.ORG, INC. IS TO RAISE FUNDS FOR A NATIONAL MULTI-MEDIA ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE THE PASSAGE OF…

House Resolution (H.R.) 676
The United States National Health Insurance Act

Affordable Single-Payer National Health Insurance for All!

What Is National Health Insurance (NHI)?

More……

[FrenchieCat]

1. Who ran on a Single Payer platform in reference to Health Care?

I don't recall.

[Phred42]

3. As you know - no one ran on it. Merely talk, and hope that they would do the right thing.

[CreekDog]

29. you mean they were supposed to choose single payer after campaigning for something else?

do go on. :eyes:

[antigop]

55. Kucinich is co-sponsor of HR 676 --- single-payer, Medicare for All n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Dennis. nt

[Overseas]

57. Dennis Kucinich -- single payer universal health care /nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. It wasn't anyone who recieve many votes

[NightWatcher]

2. "edging the party closer to the position of Barack Obama’s defeated rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton"

I dont like how things keep "leaning" towards Hillary.

First Bill gets to speak, then Hill, then the unknown commodity that is the VP-stakes, now taking her position on a HUGE policy.


I smell a DLC Rat.

[Phred42]

4. "defeated?" Let's see what happens at the Clinton Convention coming up

[high density]

5. huh?

Obama's policy sounds the same as it has always been.

[Orangepeel]

7. common dreams is generally not adverse to hyperbole

the only real difference in Obama's and Clinton's plans was the mandate. If the platform doesn't recommend a mandate, it's closer to Obama's.

:shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Her position which was the FIRST reason for my refusing to support her.

By refusing to mandate insurance, Obama left a much wider window open for single-payer coming in later. Mandating insurance for all guarantees that there will be no single-payer insurance and the fucking band-aid will fall off within months when people realize that NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

The insurance companies will STILL call the shots, and all we will have is many millions more with less than adequate coverage being devastated and forced into bankruptcy by their medical bills.

[vaberella]

66. Thank you NCevilDUer---this is the exact reason I shifted to Obama besides her crap camp. I don't

have insurance and when seeing her mandate, I'd be in a bigger hole with her putting out her regulations which would kick my ass. I preferred Obama all the away, although I would take single-payer any day of the week.

[rox63]

6. Guaranteed health care is better than no health care

Sure, it's not single-payer. But it is progress from where we are now. Single-payer is not going to happen overnight.

[TooBigaTent]

9. It is not guaranteed health care - it is guaranteed profits for the insurance industry and big pharm

Individuals will still be stuck fighting with the insurance companies over what is covered and what is not. The insurers will still pull their same shit to maximize their profits and minimize the "care" they have to pay for.

The only good plan would remove profit from health care entirely.

What a bunch of sellouts, "our" party leaders are.

[NightWatcher]

10. it's "guaranteed customers" for the insurance business. We'll have to go private or go without

kinda like now, except more government funds will be going to the insurance industry who will still treat people like shit and refuse to pay for certain expenses.

[rox63]

11. We first have to convince people that access to health care is a right, not a privilege

Once we've acomplished that, then single-payer will have a chance of happening. It may require working within the insurance model for a while. But I think the eventual goal should be single-payer health care for all.

[goodgd_yall]

69. Agreed

Even that---health care as a right, (which seems obvious to me)---is something that needs to be accepted by the American people. I've always believed it is a right, but this supposed greatest country in the world has a dog-eat-dog view of health care that needs to be changed.

[dflprincess]

12. The first clue that neither Clinton nor Obama had a real plan to reform healthcare

was that none of the insurance companies were screaming about it.

I'd love to know how they're defining "affordable" that word get tossed around a lot, but no one ever tells us what it means.

[antigop]

56. that is my question as well -- who defines "affordable"? n/t

[geckosfeet]

8. I agree - NHI is the target. But lets win the white house and get veto proof

majorities in both houses fist.

[dflprincess]

13. Given how many people are concerned about healthcare

I don't see how telling them that the only plan is to allow the crooks that are currently picking their pockets to continue to do so will help win elections.

[dtotire]

14. To Get Anything Done, You Have To Compromise

As long as everyone is covered, hospital charges are paid for, and Insurance companies must accept everyone without preconditions, it would be acceptable for the time being.

[dflprincess]

16. Insurance companies may have to accept everyone -

but what will they charge people with preexisting conditions? People will still be priced out of the market.

And hospital charges may be paid but what about preventative care, outpatient procedures, and prescriptions? This is not a compromise this is a sell out.

[Solon]

28. There will have to be a government insurance system to pick up the slack...

or at least fill in the gaps in coverage, which will be many if such a plan was put through. Either the insurance companies will make deducts and co-pays so high, hardly anyone can afford them, or they will go out of business. One thing I do not want is for taxpayer's dollars to step in and prop up private insurance companies.

[DFLforever]

18. They're being upfront and telling you Single Payer is currently

a pipe dream.

Do you think the big insurance companies are just going to fold and go out of business because we elect a Dem president, 55 senators, and maybe a 35 seat House majority?

[dflprincess]

19. They're being upfront and telling us that nothing is really going to change

when it comes to health insurance and who they really represent.

[SidneyCarton]

20. Oh gads! The horror! Is it too late to vote for McKinney?

:sarcasm:

[ecstatic]

58. lol nt

[Vinca]

21. I might as well start looking at Canadian real estate again. Disappointing. nt

[mvd]

22. Disappointing

But I've realized that we will likely have to get to single payer in stages.

[Sancho]

23. Strike three! I'm sorry, but FISA, drilling, and now health care...

I'm PO'd!


:banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead:

[NancyG]

24. I thought Hillary's plan was better than Obama's...

although I voted for O. And health coverage is my biggest issue. $1075 for 2 and crappy coverage is absurd. First we gotta win. And win big in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.

I so remember when Hillary presented her first plan last century. Dole put it on hold saying we didn't need to vote so fast. And it's still on hold. I'll be on Medicare by the time it gets off hold. Hope not.

[mvd]

25. Health care is at the top of my list, too

I think it should be free for all and if we have to increase taxes on some, it would be worth it. Health care should have profits far removed. Just look at all these "wonder drugs" with severe side effects.

[bvar22]

26. 'GUARANTEED COVERAGE' is a step AWAY from Single Payer Universal.

It will only further legitimize and codify the entrenched Insurance Industry and funnel $Billions of taxpayer dollars into the fat pockets of some of the richest CEOs in the World.

This is NOT a step toward Single Payer.
It is a step AWAY from solving our HealthCare problem.
"Affordable Insurance" is NOT a "compromise".
It is a total capitulation to the Insurance Industry.

The ONLY consolation is that more people are realizing who the establishment Democratic Party represent, and the difference between "affordable insurance" and true Universal Single Payer HealthCare is at least getting some air.

There ARE some Democrats who are fighting for the people.
Kucinich is one, and he is slowly gaining some support.

Converting to single payer Universal HealthCare would NOT be overwhelmingly difficult, as some "Democrats" would have you believe. We do NOT have to build a whole new system from scratch (as Obama claims).
The USA already has a functioning single payer system. It is called MediCare. The infrastructure is already in place. Simply expand MediCare to cover ALL Americans.




"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Radical Activist]

34. No, total capitulation to the industry would have been Hillary's plan

that pushed everyone into the insurance industry. Obama's doesn't.

[depakid]

63. Obama's does the same thing- only with less cost savings in the risk pool

and more opportunities for adverse selection.

It's a boondoggle- which is why progressives so roundly criticized it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. Exactl;y.

roll the existing systems - Medicare, Medicaid, Military, VA - into a single system and we already have close to 25% of the population covered under single-payer.

How hard could it be?

[mvd]

52. My worry about mandatory coverage is..

although more will be able to afford coverage, how good would that coverage be, and would people be able to stick with existing plans? It would be nice to first see everyone covered, but not if it entrenches the insurance companies further into the system - making it harder to take the next step to single payer.

On the other hand, Obama's plan works better with a mandatory provision, so there's a dilemma.

Single payer is still the answer.

[dflprincess]

59. There is no guarantee that more people will be able to afford coverage

if it's made mandatory. No one is defining what "affordable" is - and any sliding scale or income limits the government sets will have no connection with reality.

[BrklynLiberal]

27. Damn. We will never get Universal Health care....

x(

[Occam Bandage]

30. So, other than Kucinich, which elected Dems ran on that?

[dflprincess]

60. Ted Kennedy tried to make it an issue

in 1980.

I remember RFK jr. speaking at the DFL state convention and talking about how the U.S. was the only industrialized nation without universal health care.

Teddy wrote a book that slammed the health insurance companies in 1972 ("In Critical Condition") so we've only been kicking this idea around for 36 years - don't want to move too fast.

[CreekDog]

31. Democrats had a chance to vote for all your favorite policies in Dennis Kucinich

they didn't, so do you propose the party adopt all his policies anyway? :shrug:

[Solon]

32. His policy on this issue was and is the most practical to implement...

as in, after it was put in place, it would actually work, not like the hodge-podge bullshit that so many other candidates put forward that were, to be frank, disasters in the making. The last thing we should want to do is create a system for health care, miscalling it universal, that makes things worse, not better. That would set back true, needed, reform by decades, if not another generation.

[CreekDog]

36. i liked his policy too, but i don't see how candidates who ran on something else

can suddenly put his policy in the platform.

[Solon]

37. So what? Its not like Obama's policy is important to put in the platform...

just because he's the candidate. Frankly, it will be enough for Obama to not veto the resulting bill of H.R. 676. I don't expect Obama's health care plan to work, or be implemented anyways, its more important to elect people into the House and Senate that will vote for Single Payer health care, and then dare President Obama to veto it after it passes.

[CreekDog]

38. if you wanted it in there, you have to convince enough in the party to put it there

it's not automatic, even if it is the right answer.

sorry, it don't work like that.

[Solon]

41. As far as I'm aware of, most Democrats don't really vote on the platform itself anyways...

actually, from a realistic point of view, it doesn't matter anyways, while technically the platform shows the "direction" of the party as a whole, its, more or less, bullshit put out by party leaders.

[CreekDog]

43. those people are elected for the most part

like it or not.

do you understand what you need to do to get your way on the platform --how big a job it is, rather than to post here about what they should have done.

it's fine to post what they should have done, but that doesn't get it any closer.

[Solon]

45. No shit, I'm well aware of that, I'm also aware that the platform is more or less...

meaningless because it rarely translates into policy to begin with. Its not even enforceable within the party, much less outside of the party, considering party discipline is practically unheard of in the United States. However, having said that, I more or less just decided to interject with my opinion because this is yet again just one of many issues I've always had with the Democratic Party, lack of discipline, and frankly lack of direction as well.

[CreekDog]

47. I think the Greens have this in their platform

too bad they got a lot of bigger stuff wrong. :eyes:

[Solon]

49. Which party are you talking about?

This one:

http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/

Or this one:

http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. Wrong?

The best thing the Dems could do is steal 90% of the Greens platform.

And there's not much that "bigger" than UHC.

[Radical Activist]

33. They didn't give in to the industry

by having a plan that pushes everyone into mandated insurance, as Hillary would have done. There are actually some benefits to Obama's approach to us anti-authoritarian liberal types.

[Solon]

35. Hillary's plan sucked, Obama's plan sucks just as bad...

Frankly, I think neither plan would or will work as advertised, and will delay true reform of our health care system by years. Doing much more damage than what is already done. We need solutions, not bullshit.

[Radical Activist]

39. So let more people suffer while we wait

to get exactly what we want. I don't buy into that approach.

[Solon]

40. If the plans in question WON'T work to begin with, then people will suffer...

with them implemented or not. You are automatically assuming the plans would help, there is no guarantee of that, indeed, reading either Hillary's or Obama's plans doesn't really mean much considering they are incomplete to begin with. Funding seems to be something that was overlooked in both plans, for example.

[Radical Activist]

42. And you don't know that the plans won't help.

I think you're overly pessimistic. The things that don't work can be changed. At least we can start momentum in the right direction.

[Solon]

44. Well, the biggest problem I have is this...

there isn't a public system that EVERYONE can fallback on when things don't work. Our health care public insurance should be similar to the USPS, everyone can use it, everyone pays for it(through taxes and/or fees), but can also choose to use UPS or Fedex if they want faster service. There is no "opt-out" or "opt-in" needed, hell, you don't even have to be able to pay taxes to have access to the public system when needed, like because of unemployment or being too poor.

This is the biggest problem I had with both Obama's and Hillary's so called health care "reforms". Simply put, I'm puzzled as to how they are supposed to lower costs or improve coverage.

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. The whole point is, making the private insurers a pivotal point in the

plan is momentum in the WRONG direction.

Hillary's plan is worse than Obama's because of the mandate - which only gives the insurance industry more power, with no guarantee of better results. Obama's plan allows for no mandate which means the private insurers must actually compete, rather than just divide the pie, and they will be competing with an expanded MediCare. That makes his plan much easier to move to single-payer, in the long run, but it would be a very long run because it still keeps the private insurers in the primary loop.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. There is no more benefit to optional health care than there is to optional stop signs. n/t

[nc4bo]

46. Are there any specifics to any of these plans yet?

My family and I don't have insurance - we haven't for over 20 years and have been fortunate enough not to lose a home or go into lifetime debt due to medical bills. Between going to the drive-by clinics and the occasional ER visit, we also go to a county health clinic here that is run by volunteers from Cape Fear Valley Health System (maybe others but mostly CFV) - they go by a sliding fee scale and accept medicaid (state med insurance). The clinic covers basic medical care and preventative care for adults and children and also has ob/gyn services for women. Prescriptions are prescribed and are picked up at the in-house pharmacy.

It's better than nothing, doesn't rape the patient for every dollar they have, is great for routine exams and preventative care, colds/flus and other non life threatening conditions.

Of course, there's medicaid. States already have medicaid in place for underprivileged adults and kids but the income qualifications are so low that only the poorest of the poor can benefit from it. Why not expand medicaid, maybe provide federal $$ to individual states - allow more people to qualify for it?

Then there's that sliding fee scale at the county clinic, people who don't qualify for medicaid but can not afford the cost of even basic health insurance premiums have at least, something.

Of course, those who already have health insurance and are satisfied with it would not have to participate in either of the programs.

Just thinking out loud here.

There are lots of people like me and my family - we've been playing Russian healthcare roulette for years and years and have been extremely fortunate so far. I'm afraid we're pressing our luck though.

[Lugnut]

48. Bah.

Insurance companies are not the solution. They are the problem.

[mvd]

54. BTW, if I could choose the entire platform..

- on abortion, pro-choice. Third trimester partial birth abortions allowed when life or health of mother is at risk.

- on health care, single payer.

- on taxes and spending, I'd like to see a 50% top rate for most, while keeping taxes on people making under $75,000 a year low - multi-millionaires get a 75% top rate. Increase spending on education and transportation.

- on the death penalty, I support abolishing the death penalty. I would only support the death penalty in a country where the prison system didn't work well at all.

- on energy, support Obama's suggestion of cracking down on oil speculators and spending more on alternative energy research. Reduce OPEC/oil company dependence.

- on war/peace, I only support conflict as a last resort - if the country is under imminent danger of attack. And I don't mean isolated terror attacks - those are best addressed by strengthening security here.

- on drugs, I support legalizing marijuana only

- on guns, I support mandatory licensing in addition to the waiting periods and bans on certain kinds of more harmful bullets and bans on fully automatic weapons. Handgun purchasing limits in urban areas urged, while keeping track of guns used in crimes.

- on illegal immigration, I support a path to citizenship if a person has been here 5 years, can pass a citizenship test, has a clean record except for the illegal immigration, and goes to the back of the line. Person must also either pay a fine or serve a short jail sentence; whichever is more feasible.

- on affirmative action, I'm not big on quotas, but we should retain the right to sue for discrimination based on sex, race, or GLBT.

- on separation of church/state, there should be no more entry of the church into the state.

- on social security, absolutely no privatization

- on civil liberties, abolish the Patriot Act and restore FISA to its original state. Investigate Bush executive orders.

[goodgd_yall]

68. Yeah, my platform wouldn't go over well either n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Why adopt a plank that isn't supported by your nominee?

Universal coverage is necessary. Our nominee doesn't support it. We'll try again in 8 years.

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. He's a nominee for president, not for dictator.

If we get the majority of the party behind us, it doesn't matter if he supports it or not.

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. No, but a majority of the delegates at the convention will be Obama supporters

And in recent years delegates have given much deference to the wishes of the nominee regarding the platform. After all, he is the one who is going to have to go out and campaign on the platform and try to implement it after he is elected.