Obama said "We can't start from scratch with the Health Care system": Why not?

[SamCooke]

Some of the things that the conserva dems and the repukes want are gonna kill any good plan. If we aren't going to do it right, then we shouldn't do it at all.

[sandnsea]

1. Let people continue to die

That's fucking brilliant. I'm glad they didn't decide that in Oregon or I would be dead, and so would my husband.

[slipslidingaway]

2. No reason to start from scratch, expand Medicare to include

everyone.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/transcript4.html

"BARACK OBAMA: If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch. We have historically a tradition of employer based health care and although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their health care, the truth is that the vast majority of people currently get their health care from their employers, and you've got this system that's already in place. We don't want a huge disruption as we go into health care reform where suddenly we are trying to completely reinvent 1/6th of the economy.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: When I hear something like that, you sort of have to say, "What about all the people whose health care is so disrupted that they can't even get in the door at all? What about the people that are underinsured?"

It's interesting, because before Medicare passed, which is in 1965, we had older people, either uninsured or going to private insurance. And within a year of the time Medicare passed, the disruption, meaning that they were actually able to disrupt not having health insurance or having under insurance, 90 percent of them were already in Medicare. So, we already have a model in this country of how non disruptive it is.

When you hear the word "disruptive" what you're really hearing is code for "it would disrupt the health insurance industry." And that's exactly what needs to be done. So, disruptive is the wrong word..."

[harun]

3. About 90% of the public disagrees with that, and they are right

[mkultra]

41. agrees with what exactly?

[redqueen]

4. So... if we can't have perfect... we'll stay with what we have?

That's some fucking brilliant thinking there.

[dflprincess]

7. You're assuming that what they're going to pass will be an improvement

everything points to it just being a hand out to the insurance companies. The only "reform" we'll see is that we will be required to contribute to the them with little or no guarantee that access to health care will improve or that the companies will live up to their end of the contract.

[redqueen]

12. I'm not assuming anything. (nt)

[HamdenRice]

23. That pretty much summarizes the view of a certain mob section of the board

Better to be purists than to actually deliver anything to anyone.

[endarkenment]

24. "mob section of the board" -

[mkultra]

42. yeah, that would be those who dont care that he didnt run on SPHC

or that there is more public support for Public Option but still want to exact mob justice.

[redqueen]

25. Apparently there's no reason to hope now... so I guess we may as well just give up.

The oracles have spoken, the bill will only make things worse.

They oughtta name this forum GD:Eeyore.

[Cleita]

30. That would be fine if they were actually delivering something. All

I've seen is caveats to make the insurance companies behave better but no real reform and business as usual.

[HopeOverFear]

5. When did he say that, today?

I'm not watching tv.

[mkultra]

43. in 2003

[Cleita]

6. He doesn't have to start from scratch.

All we have to do is build from Medicare a program already in place. HR676 a bill in the house suggests just how to do it. Medicare can be improved and extended to everyone. The bureaucracy is already in place and has experience in delivering the health dollars to health care providers. There would be little in the way of growing pains, well except for the insurance company execs.

[avaistheone1]

8. We should expand upon Medicare a model that works.

[question everything]

13. I thought that Medicare will go broke in 2017?

[endarkenment]

17. It has to be everyone and appropriately funded.

Right now medicare is inadequately funded and is restricted to the most expensive to cover age cohort. By expanding medicare to everyone and adequately funding it through a payroll tax it would be solvent and we would all have access to good healthcare without the corporate rentiers extracting their corrupt quota.

[avaistheone1]

21. The health care industry especially the lobbyists are killing Medicare.

The Democrats need to change Medicare Part D so that the government and negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over the price of drugs.

Recommendations by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), including halting "massive overpayments to private insurance companies in the Medicate Advantage program," have been stymied by healthcare industry lobbyists.

Medicare would be fine if the lobbyists are stopped from looting it.

[Cleita]

28. Yes, and this will take Congress to revoke it. Then they need to plug

the gaps Medicare coverage, which they can do without breaking the bank.

[avaistheone1]

36. The Republicans have done their best to drown Medicare as well as government in the bathtub.

Driven by an ideological preference for private over government-run health insurance, the Republican Congress in 2003 made taxpayers effectively pay these private plans an average of 13 percent more per Medicare beneficiary than these beneficiaries would have cost taxpayers under the government-run program. Consequently, the private plans can offer beneficiaries superior benefits, which has caused enrollment in them to double from 5.3 million to 10.1 million between 2003 and 2008. Because it is hard to justify this extra public subsidy to the private plans on the basis of health policy, however, it has been highly controversial among health policy experts and is likely to be eliminated by the new Congress in the next few years.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-iv-a-primer-on-medicare/

[ellacott]

32. The President is recommending that MedPa be given more powers

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/how_obama_plans_to_reform_medi.html?hpid=topnews

[Cleita]

27. So the Chicken Little's of the right would have you believe.

There are fixes to keep it humming along if only Congress will pass them.

[mkultra]

44. Medicare is not Single Payer, its Public Option.

[Cleita]

45. Actually, it's not.

All seniors have to take Medicare. They can buy supplements or they can sign their benefits away for a privatized Medicare advantage plan, which the government pays for. There is no way you can buy insurance and bypass Medicare. This makes it universal and single payer for seniors. The problem is that it's not comprehensive enough which lets the insurance camel's nose under the tent to plug in the holes with private plans.

[Sunnyshine]

46. This point confuses or eludes so many people. Thanks for the clarification. n/t

[mkultra]

47. medicare was single payer until the 90's

It was changed ot include private insurance involvement. Essentially, its a sort of high bred. It is not, however, single payer.

[Cleita]

48. Traditional Medicare still is. When you sign up with the Medicare

advantage programs you forfeit your SS rights and the HMO takes over everything. The only thing different is that the govt. pays the HMOs to insure you. I know. My husband did and it was a disastrous decision because when they refused to pay he found out he had lost all his rights to Medicare. I would like to see these clowns cut off the Medicare program. It's part of the reason Medicare is rapidly being drained of money; that and Medicare part D the prescription drug benefit for the pharma companies. There isn't much benefit to the seniors.

Also, I think you mean hybrid, not high bred.

[leftstreet]

9. The Ruling Classers don't want to build from Medicare, they want to dismantle it

along with SS and all ahem "entitlements" as they call them

[Cleita]

11. I'm afraid you are right. The corporate bias is so obvious. n/t

[Thrill]

10. Because it would take too long to implement.

Just add a good public option. Thats all you need to do. And the cost will go down. The Healthcare companies would have no choice. You don't need to start from scratch

[Cleita]

14. In the sixties Medicare didn't take that long to implement once it was

signed into law. And this time they did have to do it from scratch.

[OHdem10]

15. No deal is better than a bad deal.

[endarkenment]

16. Medicare already exists. nt.

[JuniperLea]

19. That's how I see it too...

And I bet that is what Obama is talking about. We don't have to reinvent the wheel here, just make it bigger... put more rubber to the road.

[slipslidingaway]

18. Here is the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6d45duX_WU


And the video of when he was for SPHC in 2003 when running for the US Senate, we had health insurance companies and employer based insurance back then as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

[DaLittle Kitty]

20. AGREED.. Just Say NOOOO To ANY BULLSHIT PUBLIC Plan That Ain't Worth A Shit!

:think: A lot of Dems are going down in 2010 because of this no matter HOW MUCh $$$ they raise from their corp lobbyists!:think:

[PretzelWarrior]

29. that's what I'm saying. We Democrats can throw these jerks OUT if they don't do this right.

They have the stars aligned and I'LL BE DAMNED IF I'M GOING TO SIT IDLY BY and watch them piss it away. If despite our screeches and protests and reminders that we elected them they still don't do right by us...

then I will go on a full bore campaign against them.

[HamdenRice]

22. Because it means TAKING AWAY tens of millions of peoples' existing health insurance policies

It may turn out that even for people who are fully insured now, that a universal public plan would be better. But then, maybe it won't be for them.

A universal public plan right now means taking away insurance people have and forcing them to accept a different public plan.

Many of those people are going to be royally pissed off -- even if some of them are pissed off out of false consciousness or an inability to evaluate what is in their best interests.

Politically, that would be suicidal and the only people it would please would be purists. Better to fill in the gaps for the uninsured, with severe regulation of private insurance plus a public option.

[Cleita]

26. When the public plan is explained to these people, well the public plan we should get

HR676, they mostly agree that it's better than their plan. So we need to get these people informed with the truth and we need to keep our lawmakers from shooting a public plan full of holes so that people have to buy insurance to fill the holes or any of that trigger BS being mentioned.

[HopeOverFear]

31. Well how do we get them informed, how do we educate them?

Do you have suggestion? No snark, I'm asking.

[Cleita]

33. Personally, I was thinking of getting some flyers printed up with

with Conyer's plan HR 676 and website printed on them if it's not too expensive to do. We have a farmer's market locally on Thursday night that's attended by people from all over the county. I thought I might hand them out and enlist the aid of some friends to do so as well, but the devil is in the details, however it's what I can come up with right now. I am also in a position where I can talk to my physician employer's patients when they are waiting to be seen. They usually are intrigued when I tell them this is what they need. Most of them are suffering under their health plans. Other than that keep posting the truth on the internet as I have been doing for years now.

:shrug:

[avaistheone1]

35. That is a great idea both the one page flyer and distributing it in a place like a farmer's market.

Here is something I think would work as a good one page handout on single-payer.

http://www.nhchc.org/singlepayer.html


Good luck. :thumbsup:

[endarkenment]

38. Those tens of millions, myself included, have ZERO say in 'our' plans.

Thanks for once again regurgitating the usual talking points.

[Jakes Progress]

34. Because it means TAKING AWAY tens of millions of peoples' existing health insurance profits.

You gotta just know that there have to be some DUers who sell that stuff.

If the insurance companies have a hand in writing the legislation, we will be screwed. It's what they do.

[rocktivity]

37. Sure we can--by nationalizing the health insurance companies' profits.

Channel them into the public coffers, and we can work from there.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Vidar]

39. Love that idea, but won't happen here.

[endarkenment]

40. Well yes you have been told that over and over again so it must be true. nt.

[Vidar]

50. It would involve an effective socialist takeover, something even FDR backed away from.

I'd vote for it, hell I'd even carry a gun in the revolution--if I knew how to use one-- but I don't see it happening. Do you?

[endarkenment]

53. "an effective socialist takeover" - hmmm LBJ did it with medicare

and I don't remember the block committees taking my parent's house away.

I am really tired of the red baiting bullshit. Every other modern industrial (or post industrial) democracy on the planet has some form of this dreaded socialist menace known as universal health care. This does not require a revolution. It does not require anything other than simply extending medicare to everyone.

[Vidar]

54. Red baiting, hell. I am a socialist.

[ecstatic]

49. and toss out millions of jobs?

Or is that just a minor detail that can magically take care of itself?

[Cleita]

51. This will actually create jobs. Think about it.

All those people who don't look for medical care will now start going to the doctor when they need it. They will get lab tests if needed and the therapy they need. People shouldn't have to die of cancer if they can be treated or other diseases.

[avaistheone1]

55. Single payer will not toss out millions of jobs. Single payer will actually create milllions of jobs

Here is the study that proves it all. Check it out.
http://www.calnurses.org/research/pdfs/ihsp_sp_economic_study_2009.pdf

[valerief]

52. I hate when these pols make blanket statements like that with no reason behind it.

Prez, say the words. Tell us why. We're not mind readers.

[anonymous171]

56. I agree. If we don't, we will just be adding a new layer of bureaucracy

Eliminate the old system and create a totally new and simple system.