Single payer makes sense to me.

[FLyellowdog]

Why would this be bad? http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what_is_single_payer.php

[John Q. Citizen]

1. It's bad because it would cut the criminal insurance racket out of stealing our money

and then where would our congress critters get their bribes from?

[FLyellowdog]

4. Stupid ole me...I forgot about that.

[dhpgetsit]

2. Either way

HR676 is like cutting the head off the Health Care Insurance Industry, while the public option is more like slicing an artery and waiting for it to bleed out. Either path is acceptable to me if it ends up destroying for-profit health-care insurance.

Anything less is just a cave to the industry lobbyists.

[iverglas]

3. the excellent link shouldn't be missed

Single-payer might not be politically possible in the US right now, but it's important that as many people as possible know what it is ... and what they're missing out on, and can keep aiming for.

[FLyellowdog]

5. My thoughts as well.

[iverglas]

6. and I'll tell ya

Seven years ago at DU, we Canadians had a hard row to hoe, trying to explain that "socialized" health insurance is not "socialized" health care. On and on we would go, explaining that doctors have private practices here; other healthcare providers (physiotherapists, etc.) operate private businesses; diagnostic labs are private enterprises; hospitals are mainly "public" but in the sense that they are operated by non-profit foundations, not "the government". But they are all paid by the public health insurance plan for all medically necessary services.

Single payer. Single payer. Our mantra.

And about two years ago I started to notice a critical mass of you from down south of the border there using the term spontaneously. Single payer. Saying it to each other.

I was properly impressed. You've got the idea now, just hold onto it!

[FLyellowdog]

9. We'll do what we can.

Thanks for the positive feedback.:hi:

[dhpgetsit]

12. If it's not politically possible....

It's only because Insurance Industry lobbyists are fighting it tooth and nail. They are spreading misinformation to poison public opinion as fast as they can, and putting the screws to the Congresscritters.

We really need to quit backing down whenever the Cons try to say that what we voted for is not politically possible.

[iverglas]

13. no disagreement

I've been doing my damndest to help debunk Shona Holmes everywhere I can, fr instance!

Not being a US resident, I try not to express opinions about what's politically possible in the US, for lack of adequate knowledge.

What's good and right, on that I'm happy to expound. ;)

[stumpchunkman]

7. Explain it to John Conyers then

If it's so simple then maybe you need to explain it to Judicial Committee head John Conyers:

“I love these members that get up and say, 'Read the bill,'... What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

[iverglas]

8. any chance you might consider reading the post you're responding to?

The post is about SINGLE PAYER health insurance.

Your post is about THE BILL.

See the difference?

Or were you not aware that the bill and single-payer health insurance are light years apart?

Or maybe you were just over-eager to carry out your mission ...

(Two posts down, both of today's date, in the last few minutes; how many do you have in mind?)

[stumpchunkman]

10. Sorry I was the only one who mentioned the bill...

or was I.....

"HR676 is like cutting the head off the Health Care Insurance Industry, while the public option is more like slicing an artery and waiting for it to bleed out. Either path is acceptable to me if it ends up destroying for-profit health-care insurance.

Anything less is just a cave to the industry lobbyists."



I guess you just took issue to my mentioning of the bill because I tend to not agree with your premise. Had I had glowing support for this enlightened concept, you would have had no problem right?

[iverglas]

11. now all I need to know

is what your post in reply to the OP had to do with the post you now cite - written by a completely different person -- in the alternative reading you propose.

But okay, you've succeeded. I'm so confused now I don't think I'll ever get sorted out.

The OP is about single-payer health care. That's the one you replied to. That's the one that said:

"Single payer makes sense to me. Why would this be bad (with link to PNHP)."


Your reply:

"If it's so simple then maybe you need to explain it to Judicial Committee head John Conyers:"

makes some little bit of sense as a response to that post. It makes no sense at all as a response to:

"HR676 is like cutting the head off the Health Care Insurance Industry, while the public option is more like slicing an artery and waiting for it to bleed out. Either path is acceptable to me if it ends up destroying for-profit health-care insurance."

which you now seem to be claiming it was about.


But whatever, eh?

I'm afraid I'm not sufficiently interested in the minutiae of this business to have an idea why John Conyers --


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00676:@@@P

H.R.676
Title: To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, improved health care delivery, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. <MI-14> (introduced 1/26/2009)


-- would be saying whatever that is ... unless maybe somebody were taking it just a tad out of context.


I guess you just took issue to my mentioning of the bill because I tend to not agree with your premise. Had I had glowing support for this enlightened concept, you would have had no problem right?

I just dunno.

My premise is that single payer health care is the best and only good plan for any society. I made that fact-based opinion kinda plain in this thread, as I have over many years at this site, many times.

The bill has nothing to do with single payer health care.

So can you make sense of what you just said?

Good luck!