Is this what we've been told to sit still and wait for?

[Stinky The Clown]

A WONDERFUL HEADLINE: "UPDATE 1-Obama: Health overhaul could save U.S. trillions"

Then the "fuck you" part: "Obama has invited several large trade groups, including the American Medical Association, America's Health Insurance Plans and the American Hospital Association, to discuss wringing savings from the health system.

At a 12:30 p.m. EDT (1630 GMT) event, the trade groups will pledge to reduce the growth of health spending by 1.5 percentage points annually through more efficient practices, according to White House officials.

The cost savings would be achieved through steps such as streamlining paperwork and changing the way hospitals deliver and bill for services to patients."

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1111675020090511







I know ..... let's click on the happy picture threads of smiling faces gathered 'round .... swoon a little ....... say how cute they all are ...... how funny they are, reading lines at a bullshit insider's dinner. Yeah ... Happy Talk and Picture Threads.



This is what we feared we'd get. Big Med, Big Insurance, and Big Pharma **promising" to do better.

We the people get locked out.



Hey, post another Happy Picture Thread so we can all forget.






yeah .....

[TheWraith]

1. Thank you.

Because the only thing more productive than a Happy Picture Thread and a little optimism is yet another thread about how Obama is shit, we're corporate slaves, and might as well all kill ourselves.

[Grinchie]

74. Nah, I'd rather starve the Corporations to death.

I can outlast em.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

99. Selfish (evidently non-septuagenarian) bastard!

Starvation does have it's appeal I'll admit but from my perspective
I'd much rather pull the plug on every last one of those blood sucking fuckers
in the health insurance industry now!

[Captain Hilts]

2. Having AHA there would be fine, if advocates for single payer were also there. The debate is

starting in the wrong place.

It's like discussing tax policy and starting with income tax when the VAST majority of United Statesians pay more in regressive payroll taxes. Same thing here. Don't start the debate to the right of center.

[bullimiami]

3. just because he invited them to talk doesnt mean they are going to drive the agenda.

its premature to start jumping up and down.

[LynneSin]

This is my concern with single-payer health care...

and mind you, I'm on board 100% with it.

But these insurance companies employ thousands of Americans. What will happen to these people and their jobs if we go single-payer.

I have a friend that works for Blue Cross, she is not the enemy - just a single mother trying to make ends meet for her and her daughter.

[kentuck]

9. If a thousand people are helped and your friend has to look for another job?

Would that be a fair trade-off?

[LynneSin]

11. What if that was you who was my friend?

If the job market was strong I suppose I wouldn't have these concerns but it's not.

I'm not saying that this shouldn't happen but when it does I hope we have options for those people out of a job because of it.

[kentuck]

38. I have lost my job 4 times in the last eight years.

It's nothing new to me. Is your friend better than I and millions like me?

[LynneSin]

64. Not at all - but I do not wish anyone to lose a job - you or my friend

It's bad karma

[shadowknows69]

54. I think a progressive overhaul of the health system would create jobs

Efficiency doesn't have to come at the expense of keeping people employed. Whole new levels of red tape to be sifted through will be created in any (significant) overhaul. I think there would be more chances for some people (experienced) to possibly even further their careers. Wow, I must be on a manic cycle or something to be that optimistic.

[Octafish]

130. From physicians to home health care providers to janitors...

...there's plenty of need for caring.

Too bad Wall Street is always first in line.

[bvar22]

55. If it was my friend...

...I would be comforted by knowing that at least they would have Health Care while they are looking for a new job.
I would suggest looking for a job at the newly expanded MediCare for All system.
They will be needing experienced workers.

[Stand and Fight]

80. EXACTLY my thoughts. Bravo! n/t

[CTyankee]

63. I posted a thread on just this subject several days ago. Interesting reaction.

Many people said people like your friend could be hired into any new system that we come up with to replace the old one. The flaw in that argument, it seems to me, is that the whole point of health insurance reform was to cut bureaucratic costs.

Others said that office skills are transferable. Still other said it was just like what happened to buggy whip makers. You find something else to do. You go back to school, retrain.

Surprisingly, several responders said that since health care would be expanded to more people, there would be more jobs created to provide that care. They saw the possibility of an office worker in, say, Blue Cross, becoming a nurse, doctor, aide, etc.

I think we'll still have Blue Cross. It will be one of the private plans available to people. I doubt if the company will just fold overnight. If your friend is in a strong department that is in any way a profit center she'll probably do ok.

Another possibility is that she could go into another insurance company. If she knows how to handle claims she could easily transfer those skills.

[RaleighNCDUer]

108. One cause of the weakness of the economy is the employer mandate

to provide health insurance to employees, and employees fear of losing their healthcare if they lose their jobs. Single payer will automatically reform both those situations. Employers not having to cover insurance will give them an energizing boost of funds with which they can (finally) fully staff their operations - do you know ANY business that is NOT running shorthanded today? - which means there will be more job opportunities open to your friend. Also, without the fear of losing insurance many, many more people will pull up stakes from their drudge jobs to start their own businesses, take sabbaticals, become stay-at-home parents, pursue the arts, go on archeological digs, whatever, further opening up the job market for the displaced insurance industry workers.

Single payer will CREATE far more jobs than it will cost.

[kenfrequed]

113. False Choice

Depending upon what your friend does I can garauntee you that a health system that suddenly covers an additional 60-80 million more people nationwide, and provides better more complete coverage for an additional hundred million might actually provide a couple of jobs for people that work in healthcare or in care management.

I have to balance your friends job agaisnt all the people that are not covered at all and will die and those many, many, many millions that are undercovered and merely paying their insurance company in a holding pattern until they develop an illness bad enough to be dropped.

This reminds me of the false-choice argument of jobs vs the environment that was so popular in the nineties.

[Captain Hilts]

16. They must get a piece of the pie. Absolutely. But the participants in this debate must be balanced

with those advocating single-payer.

[avaistheone1]

123. *First-of-Its Kind Study: Single-Payer Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs

First-of-Its Kind Study: Medicare for All (Single-Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages

http://tinyurl.com/8xyd8a



:kick:

[SammyWinstonJack]

136. Seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?

:shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Workers will be needed to process single payer claims. Yes there will be

less redundancy and a need for fewer workers.

But the same was true for the invention of the steam engine and the computer, just to name a couple.


And yes, losing a job to a change in policy or technology or recession is still losing a job and it still effects humans negatively who lose a job. But I see no way around it. We aren't going to spend billions a year to employ people making buggy whips when there are few horse drawn buggies used or sold in this country. At one time, millions worked in agriculture. Now we have tractors and far less are employed in ag.

I would suggest that funds be appropriated for retraining and different employment for former health insurance workers who are displaced by the advance of civilization in our culture. The right to health care and the ability to work need not be in competition.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. If single payer goes forward, the government will have to either outsource or directly employ ......

..... many, many, many more claims processors than they do now. At least until the system gets working. And that will allow things to transition smoothly .... both for health care and for those who may, eventually, find their jobs gone. But i think it is a virtual impossibility that those jobs will be lost overnight. They work those people do will be needed no matter who is paying the claim.

[dgibby]

27. For what it's worth,

I'm on TRICARE (military) and they employ a lot of people to administer the program, so it the entire country was on a single payer plan, I'm fairly certain it would take lots of experienced people to run it.

[global1]

30. Somebody Will Still Have To Administer A Single Payer System.......

more people will be processed through the system - so I believe that very few people - except those at the top - will lose their jobs. It's the people at the top that are fighting single payer - because they won't be making their handsome salaries and bonuses off of raising premiums and rejecting claims.

The paperwork in the system will be streamlined so that we'll have standard forms across the board. Not like now where every insurance company has their own set of rules and paperwork, etc.

I wouldn't worry about your friend that works for Blue Cross - unless she is in upper management.

[mike_c]

37. I'm sorry, but she works for the "enemy..."

My recommendation for your friend: find another job, because if most of America has its way, her corporation will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Some things are simply reserved for folks who make good choices.

[The Wizard]

93. It won't become extinct

but shift focus to supplemental coverage. Eventually, there will be optional/enhanced coverage the insurance companies will sell. The competition provided by the Medicare choice for all will drive private sector prices down, thus lowering executive bonuses and salary.

[No Elephants]

40. Hopefully, your friend could find work within the single payer system, or in a field

that needs her skill set. What does she do? Customer service? Bookkeeping? Claim processing? There is more than one employer and even more than one industry where those skills will be used.

when automobiles became popular, the carriage makers had to find other work too. You don't demand or expect a halt to autos because of that. Maybe for other reasons, but not just because of that.

[ooglymoogly]

69. If single payer goes into effect the single payer will need her expertise

as much as Blue Cross does. Blue cross will just not be able to rake in billions off illness, suffering and tragedy.

[Grinchie]

77. Ah yes, the poor people working in useless jobs.

Their is another solution that Bush had, it was called starting a war with Iran in order to boost emplyment in the military industrial complex. Same tactic, different industries. In the end, that smae rich fatcats get a big fat bonus, while a few thousand middle class can continue to toil at administrative jobs that can go away tomorrow.

We have fricken cells phones that are more powerful than a mainframe computer of less than 20 years ago, complete with instantaneous communications, and GIS so they know exactly where you are at all times, and you are talking about data entry clerks keeping their jobs.

How about she stays home and raises her kids properly, find a partner that she loves and stop struggling with wages that barely pay the bills, avoid taxation of those pitiful wages, and reap the benefits of the amazing advances of "Increased Productivity" that they shout at us all the time.

The Rate Race system is what is broken, and make work jobs are not the answer.

[billyoc]

79. Blackwater employs a lot of people too, should we keep Iraq/Afghanistan going?

You wouldn't want all those people to be laid off, would you?

[Lorien]

81. They could switch to property insurance and come to Florida

we're losing State Farm.

[eridani]

89. If the government controls the payment system, they can DEMAND no outsourcing!

That will insure that necessary claims processing jobs stay here. Also there is retraining for providing actual services.

[quakerboy]

90. I would be willing to wager

that a govt run system would need some employees to run it. Items will still have to be billed and documented, approved and tracked. Your friend would most likely have a new job doing a similar thing at a better pay rate and with better benefits.

You can hire an awful lot of 60k/year bureaucrats for the salary of a CEO.

[destes]

107. That's a good question and deserves some honest answers

Short answer:
They may get the same consideration as ex-steel workers and ex-auto workers. But more likely their lot will be more comparable to layoffs in other non-union shops. 6 to 9 months unemployment benefits and see-ya-later sucker.

Long answer:
They, for the most part, can/will become part of the bureaucracy for the single payer system. One would expect "existing middle management/down", now with private insurance companies, to be perfectly suitable for employment in this new Department of Health Care. Executives in the existing health care industry are, doubtlessly, already packing their golden parachutes.

More complex answer:
If the government sets up a program parallel to (and in competition with) for-profit providers instead of just shutting them down there will be less need for many of those "existing middle management/down" employees. Thus another example of how executives in the existing system screw their employees by their short-sighted resistance to the march of progress.

[BonnieJW]

110. If single payer goes nationwide,

it will take thousands of people to administer it. Right now, we just have Medicare and Medicaid for a section of the country. Imagine if it expands to 300M people. Every healthcare provider will need a team (smaller than what they have now) to submit bills to the government system. The government system will need thousands of experienced health care billers.

[EC]

119. If we end up more like Germany

the insurance companies become non-profit and people still have their jobs....Me, I think insurance companies are a waste of time and money, just middlemen...

[avaistheone1]

121. The new system will still need some people to administer claims.

Administration will shrink, however, eliminating the need for many insurance workers, as well as administrative staff in hospitals, clinics and nursing homes. More health care providers, especially in the fields of long-term care, home health care, and public health, will be needed, and many insurance clerks can be retrained to enter these fields. Many people now working in the insurance industry are, in fact, already health professionals (e.g. nurses) who will be able to find work in the health care field again. But many insurance and health administrative workers will need a job retraining and placement program. We anticipate that such a program would cost about $20 billion, a small fraction of the administrative savings from the transition to national health insurance.
PNHP has worked with labor unions and others to develop plans for a jobs conversion program with would protect the incomes of displaced clerical workers until they were retrained and transitioned to other jobs.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#insurance_companies

[northernlights]

129. single payer would relieve all the rest of the companies

that provide health insurance from the expense, which would help them to survive, then grow and hire. So your friend who is making money pushing paper that is used mostly to deny medical care to those who've paid for it in advance could find new work doing something more useful to society.

And government-run healthcare will need *some* adminstrative types to run that program.

But the bottom line is, I didn't see anybody bailing out high tech to keep me and my friends employed.

I don't see anyone bailing out the auto industry to keep the auto makers employed.

So as far as I'm concerned your friend can get in line behind those of us who were dumped by society years ago and have yet to find a toehold to stop our descent into dire poverty.

[No Elephants]

41. I agree with your first point, but not with your second. You don't wait until everything is decided

cast ub bronze, set in stone, etc. before you activate, give your input, etc. The time for that is now.

On the other hand, if "jumping up and down" means nothing more than simply giving up and whining, then it's always premature, IMO.

[bvar22]

53. Yes!

Just because Obama installed Geithner and Summers to head up the Economic Team doesn't mean that Wall Street Billionaires will receive preferential treatment.

Just because Single Payer Advocates are being Locked Out of the debate BY the Democratic Party doesn't mean that its really Off The Table.
They are probably all Playing Chess, and will secretly betray their Million Dollar Health Insurance Lobbyist when it comes up for a vote.

Relax.
Your Congress Critters represent YOU, not their corporate lobbyists.

[SammyWinstonJack]

137. Give the greedy bastards a seat at the table and they'll eat all the food!

Your Congress Critters represent YOU, not their corporate lobbyists. :evilgrin:

[Jakes Progress]

73. If we end up with a Pharma and Insurance written

health care plan (like the senior prescription wet kiss for both industries) would you be prepared to start jumping up and down? Or would it be too late? Or would that be being mean to the President?

[Jakes Progress]

75. Duplication. nt

[TBF]

109. But at least they are in the room. As opposed to the rest of us who are locked out.

Lincoln said "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government : of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I'd like to think he was talking about us citizens, and not simply the corporate deciders. Perhaps I am wrong.

[babylonsister]

4. Nothing is yet set in stone, yet you're rankled they're talking?

Well, that's too bad. I think that this dialogue is even happening is a step in the right direction. But have at it. I'm sure your misery will find company.

[Eric J in MN]

7. Corporate executives and politicians talking is a breakthrough?

No, that happens all the time.

[babylonsister]

18. Talk about reshaping healthcare in this country is new.

Sorry you missed my point.

[No Elephants]

42. Talk about reshaping health care started at least as early as Teddy Roosevelt, if not before. Quite

a few administrations discussed and/or attempted it after that, including, of course, Nixon's and Clinton's.

[tomp]

49. exactly! close to a century of bullshit and...

....service to entrenched interests.

[DireStrike]

100. It would be if there was any talk on that subject by anyone with power.

There is no reshaping going on. Paperwork streamlining and cost-cutting measures are not reforms.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. My misery will be yours if this goes as it appears to be going.

Where is YOUR voice being heard, Babylon Sister? Who is speaking for YOU?

Or for ME?

Or for any citizen?

I see only the vested interests - the monied interests - being heard.

Where is the seat at the table for us?

[babylonsister]

34. I have no idea what the final product will be,

so I'm waiting and seeing. You do know that no one is going to be 100% satisfied, I hope.

And iirc, there were a whole bunch of different interests represented at the healthcare forum Obama held earlier this year, not just the monied interests.

I think a little patience would go a long way around here.

[No Elephants]

44. Totally disagree that people should wait for the final product before raising issues. The time

to try to have input into any project is early and often.

We should point out flaws, red flags, danger signs, and we should all let our lawmakers and Obama know how we feel.

Waiting patiently for the final product? No thanks.

[TBF]

111. Not all the parties are talking - just the elite politicians and corporations.

So I guess that's what you favor. Leave the rest of the millions of us out of the equation. Nice.

[kenfrequed]

117. Perhaps

But when an entire solution is left off the table that is probably indicative of the sort of legislation being imagined. To take a 'wait and see' attitude or to chastise negativity with regards to this is to either be blind to the effect of corporate insurance lobbies or to be completely disingenuous.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. I don't spin it like that. I spin it more like Krugman does. I think it's a good thing

that the economic powers that be feel the need to do anything.

No, I don't trust them. But I am quite happy that they felt the necessity to to do something.

[No Elephants]

45. Good that they feel the need to do something; bad that they feel no need to include

consumer advocates. They need to hear that people are unhappy about that.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. i agree. In fact I've met with Baucus' staff, i've called his office, and I'm writing him today,

about both tax-based single-payer fee-for-service style health payment system and about the need to insure their is a public health pool option in his bill.

I would also like to see the option for states to do a single payer fee for service system on their own should they decide to.

To be quite honest, every single politician from Obama to Baucus to the Repos knows what single payer is. I've been working for it since 1990.

But if legislation passed today, it would still take years to switch over to a national single payer system. It took Canada a number of years to do it, and they had a much less complex situation for a number of reasons, population being but one variable.

I think we need to stress the fact that unless the widely popular single payer option gets a seat at the table as well, any reform is going to be viewed as fundamentally illegitimate.

I don't believe that a meeting requested by a coalition of health care professionals has to include single payer advocates, any more than i believe a meeting requested by single payer advocates has to include insurance industry representatives.

But in the final analysis, all interested parties need a seat at the table. That is if we want to get anything done.

[No Elephants]

146. Agree. No question that SOMEhing will get done. Only question is

whether what does get done will really be the best thing that can possibly be done for Americans, or will it be only the best thing that the insurance industry can get away with?

[Eric J in MN]

6. This is ridiculous. We need Medicare for All.

We don't need the insurance companies saying:
We were going to waste $2 trillion, but we won't if you get rid of the public option.

Tell Congress to support H.R. 676.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/

[csziggy]

12. The way the morning talking heads were explaining they are going to cut

"Unneeded tests" - I read that as reducing diagnostic tests, cutting access to additional tests to verify result and eliminating second opinions. More medical choices made by insurance companies instead of by our own doctors is not what we need.

[Bluenorthwest]

118. Well I've picked my doctors

because they do not force me to do testing that is not needed. Many of them do. Some tests are not needed. So I read that line like this: we will try to stop flushing money and wasting the time of subjects as a method of making more profit.

[csziggy]

132. But what about people who have diseases/conditions that have not been diagnosed?

And need more testing to find out the real problem? My late BIL suffered from abdominal pain for years but his insurance company limited the tests they would allow. By the time he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, it was far too late to do anything much about it.

Additional testing might not have found it sooner, but we'll never know.

If tests were 100% accurate and if doctors were right about their diagnoses 100% of the time, I would not be concerned. But tests can give false negatives or positives and sometimes doctors do know have all the facts or the background to correctly determine a problem.

[RoadRage]

8. You're Right... let's change the Healthcare system, without actually involving those in Healthcare..

Exactly how much sense does it make not to invole insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, etc. in this new system?

They still need to be at the table to discuss.. you can't just change everything without involving those people who will be responsible for implementing the changes...

[Captain Hilts]

13. Ins. companies should be involved so long as advocates for single payer, etc. also are involved.

Don't rig the negotiations to lean to the right.

[blindpig]

103. Fuck those parasites. Cut out the Insurance companies.

They've had their day and then some.Let them be relegated to that market which deals in the elective and vanity.

The government has plenty experience providing health care insurance.

[bread_and_roses]

20. Insurance co.s are not involved in health "care."

They are "involved" in making a profit, which is their only reason for existing. Which is why they have nothing to contribute which will benefit health "care" for people.

[No Elephants]

48. +1 Bingo!

[L0oniX]

52. DING DING DING

[Lorien]

82. In fact, they work to BLOCK patients from getting the care they need

a doctor orders a life saving surgery and just watch the insurance company come back with "it's experimental" or "It's not an approved procedure". They don't care who dies, as long as they're winning financially.

[endarkenment]

106. Exactly. What value do they add to health care?

They add nothing. They exist to extract profit from the transfer of funds between accounts. In order to maximize those profits, they must minimize services provided by health care providers while maximizing charges to people or organizations purchasing the health 'insurance' this rentier 'industry' provides.


Rentier capitalism is a term used in Marxism and sociology which refers to a type of capitalism where a large amount of profit-income generated takes the form of property income, received as interest, rents, or capital gains.

The beneficiaries of this income are a property-owning social class who play no productive role in the economy themselves but who monopolise the access to physical assets, financial assets and technologies. They make money not from producing anything new themselves, but purely from their ownership of property (which provides a claim to a revenue stream) and dealing in that property.

Often the term rentier capitalism is used with the connotation that it is a form of parasitism or a decadent form of capitalism.

See also

Rentier state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism

[bread_and_roses]

141. that's a wonderful definition - thanks for that

I particularly like "a form of parasitism" since that's exactly how I see it. But alas, the Marxists didn't always have a golden tongue when it comes to catchy terms - I can't think that "rentier capitalism" will catch on. I've been calling them (insurance, big pharma, international corporations, banksters, ponzi-market pushers) vampires, but that's not good enough either. We need something clever and catchy.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Where are the single payer advocates in all this?

The people who the Senate LAUGHED OUT of their meetngs.

The ones who were NOT INVITED to talk to the powers that be,

How am I to think you or I am being represented when ONLY the people who stand to lose BUSINESS and PROFITS are at thew table?

[global1]

33. I Don't Think Anybody Is Suggesting These Groups Not Have A Seat At The Table.......

they're just suggesting that 'single-payer' advocates - that have up to now been shut out of a seat at the table - have some voice in shaping this new system.

[No Elephants]

47. No one said ANYthing about excluding the entire health

industry, though, or anything remotely like that. The suggestions have been to include more than the big corporations, to include advocates for single payer, and, heaven forbid, some health care consumers and consumer advocates.

There have been some in the latter group who have been studying this for decades and have no ax, other than consumer protection, to grind. The people at this table are worried about how much money they will make on our backs or how much they stand to lose if we get a beter deal. Gee, I'd like to see some other types in that mix.

[bvar22]

60. I will say that.

<Paraphrasing John Edwards>

If you give those vultures (Health Insurance Industry) a seat at the table, they will eat all the food.

[dysfunctional press]

92. what do insurance companies need to discuss that medicare doesn't already know?

:shrug:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. Like USDA meets with canners to sell benfits of botulism to the public.

That's just how I see this. Our "protectors" meet with the vested interests to discuss how to push something inherently injurious on the American public.

[bigtree]

14. told to not only sit still and wait . . .but like it

. . . or else you're just looking for something to complain about.

[ecstatic]

15. I think because of all the jobs and industries involved in health care

everyone should get a seat at a table. The economy could collapse if Obama unilaterally ended every private program. The question is not whether they have a seat, but how much influence they will have.

[Captain Hilts]

17. That is correct. nt

[Lorien]

84. Health CARE or health insurance ? New jobs would be created with single

payer. My father sold his physicians practice because the insurance nightmare got to be too much. Many, many cities have doctor and nurse shortages, ERs have closed down, and all because INSURANCE COMPANIES have made providing health care too expensive and complicated. With single payer people would be going back to work and many lives would be saved. I'd say that's worth it!

[Kansas Wyatt]

21. If Obama & the Democrats fuck up health care reform...

And cave in to the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and for profit health care, then they had better be prepared for election losses, because people will give up on them and republicans will be standing there to offer them the Jesus Juice.

[JackRiddler]

32. Deja vu all over again: 1993 - 1994.

[bvar22]

59. It is not really "Obama and the Democrats".

It is Obama and the "Centrist" Democrats.

Many, many REAL Democrats support removing the age restrictions from MediCare (HR 676,MediCare for All). This Bill has 93 co-sponsors in the House of Reps, but you wouldn't know this is you only listened to the White House or the Democratic Party establishment.

[leftstreet]

68. That's an important distinction

The DLCrats are the vocal ones. It'd be nice if the M$M would let people know there are Democrats who support single payer.

[Enthusiast]

96. Single payer advocates are centrists.

Just sayin'

[kenfrequed]

122. Well actually

Give us left of center liberal progressives a bit of credit. We are the ones that are pushing single payer/universal the hardest. It is all the DLC triangulators and pro corporate Dems that are trying to keep the insurance companies in the picture.

[pleah]

23. K&R

[Toucano]

25. Let's boil this down a little.

The private, profit-driven, competition-fueled industry players are telling us that they can squeeze TRILLIONS out of the cost of administering care by streamlining paperwork and being more efficient?

They can do this (and will only do this) if the government gives the a license to print money by mandating that every citizen purchase their product?

Otherwise they're not interested in reducing the cost by TRILLIONS? What must the shareholders think?


This is the point in the game, I would declare, "Check".

[global1]

28. If They Are Willing To Forego $2 Trillion Over The Next Ten Years.....

and by they I mean the health insurers, hospitals, drug companies, doctors and medical device makers - than can you imagine how much they have been taking us to the cleaners for up to now.

This attempt by them is so they can protect their profits - which must be huge if they are willing - out of the bottom of their hearts - to sacrifice this $2 trillion on this deal.

Either they are really concerned that 'single payer/universal coverage' is viable - and they are using this to thwart passage (you know keep your friends close and your enemies closer) OR they are playing along with the government saying that there will be more efficient practices and cost savings achieved through steps such as streamlining paperwork and changing the way hospitals deliver and bill for services to patients - only to be non-cooperative and sabotage these efforts - later to say that they don't work.

[quakerboy]

91. They are not cutting us a 2 trillion break

They are "promising" they will not raise the costs by another 2 trillion.

[phantom power]

29. Did they remember to bring more police this time?

[blindpig]

31. K&R for an appropriately stinky attitude.

It's pathetic, not even the decency of a half-assed dog & pony show. That's disrespect for the majority of Americans and those advocates, but oh so telling.

[Fireweed247]

35. nice try from the people who let thousands die every year to up their bonuses

we ain't buying it!

[Occam Bandage]

36. What makes you think that's it? Cost control is a necessary part of any reform.

Even single payer.

[nolabels]

88. If you take predators out of the equation the grazing animal will eventually starve

An even better answer would be rewarding people who can prove they are living healthy lifestyles. Prevention is a way better than just throwing band-aids over boo-boo's :shrug:

[DireStrike]

101. Your animal analogy lost me

Why would the grazing animal starve?

[nolabels]

150. Health care efficiency doesn't exist in a static state

The predators are the people who suck the life out of the rest of us by making us pay through the nose for treatments. Without their greed we wouldn't never muster the innovations that eventually put them out of business.

(snip)
Herbivores in grassland surrounded by a fence or unsuitable habitat, without predators, can usually be counted upon to increase in number until the food supply is used up and animals begin to starve. There are many examples in Australia where this has happened with kangaroos and, if nothing is done, it will surely end up with the habitat being destroyed by overgrazing and the kangaroos dying of starvation. Because this pattern is well understood, and able to be predicted, it should be possible to anticipate and deal with problems of overpopulation before they arise. Places where this is likely to occur are usually close to human activity, typically on fenced reserves right under people's noses, and it would be best if the potential problem is dealt with before it arises. When population increase is allowed to continue to such a point that land degradation has become an issue, it becomes difficult to manage because of the large number of individuals that have to be either relocated or killed, and the difficulty is exacerbated because both of these management measures stir up such passion within the community.
(snip)
http://www.aussmc.org/ScienceBlog18Mar08.php

The analogy is we have become easy pickings for all those crooks who are running our health care industries. With the help of the government we have become like fish in barrel :shrug:

[L0oniX]

39. The shit is coming down on us from the insurance ass.

[earth mom]

43. I'm glad someone is speaking the truth for a change around here.

But hey, what a cute puppy the O's have.

Bet he has better health care than most Americans have too.

Ain't that special?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orrex]

70. Then why do you two stick around, if truth is so toxic to this forum?

Just asking.

[No Elephants]

51. Better health care? Go to whitehouse. gov and read about Air Force One alone.

The website says there is a doctor on board at all times, but, somewhere else, I read four are assigned to the plane, not one. So, I am not sure how that sorts out. And, there is an operating room on board. And that's just the plane. Heaven only knows about the WH, the new limo, etc. That annual checkup at Walter Reed for the Presidents seems to be more for the media and the public.

[earth mom]

57. I was talking about the dog. nt

[No Elephants]

149. If the dog gets sick on AF ONE, I bet the doc would do his or her best to treat him.

[Stinky The Clown]

61. I don't begrudge the president (or the country) that one bit.

I know you and I agree, generally, and this healthcare issue. But I can't go along with you on this particular point. I want the leader of my country to have the singularly very best health care available.

No snark.

I mean that.

[No Elephants]

148. Kindly point out where I indicated that I begrudge the President the best possible

medical care. Someone commented on the quality of his mnedical care. I commented back on the degree of that quality. that does not mean I don't want him to have the best care.

[Captain Hilts]

128. President gets medical care at BethesdaNaval Hosp. nt

[No Elephants]

147. They used to get it at Walter Reed, but that is not exactly the point.

[Individualist]

46. DLC rules

:puke:

[Faryn Balyncd]

62. K&R..The enemy of reform is not "opposition to reform"..The enemy of reform is Pseudo"Reform" - -::

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5633429&mesg_id=5633429





:kick:

[tbyg52]

65. Never trust the promises of a corporation

Unless you've got a law with great big teeth.

[notesdev]

98. What law?

Laws are for little people like you and I. Big corps, government officials, well-connected moneymen and illegal aliens alike can all operate as they will with none of that annoying 'law' stuff to restrict them.

But, God forbid, you do 37mph in a 35 zone...

[tbyg52]

140. Ain't that the simple truth.

It's a class war, and the wrong side is winning.

[Fireweed247]

66. kick

:kick:

[underpants]

67. The private companies can't compete with the government and they know it

they are trying to water down the final bill.

[bkkyosemite]

71. We can no longer allow the Insurance Companies to decide whether we live or die. The

time has come for all of us to speak out. To Obama, the legislators and whoever else that we do not want any greedy corporation deciding on our healthcare options...

[Lorien]

83. Amen to that! Write your Reps now if you haven't already! n/t

[Thickasabrick]

72. There is no mechanism to force these companies to do anything.

Obama made the statement that the "media" would help to be the watchdogs. Who owns a big part of the media....the Health Industry.

Smoke and Mirrors.

[OwnedByFerrets]

76. This was the "Move along now, nothing to see here" meeting.

[LWolf]

78. Yes. This is the change we voted for. nt

[farmboxer]

85. The Best Congress Money Can Buy.

America is a Plutocracy. Our politicians represent the huge insurance companies. We do not count. It's all about the money. They just told us to "Go To Hell" suffer without health care before doing such. They laugh at us all. They spit into our faces! They have great health care, we do not. They have a great retirement, we do not. They do not work for us, they work for the extremely rich!

[kid a]

86. did you write this yourself?

It's a bunch of uninformed, unsubstantiated crap.
And cheap flame bait

[Stinky The Clown]

114. Set us straight ......

..... or shut the fuck up.

[colsohlibgal]

87. Tomorrow

Tomorrow should be must see TV as single payer advocates attempt to crash the party once again - they have no other choice of course because Mr. paid off himself, Max Baucus, refuses to have anyone touting single payer at the table once again

I'll not forget that "democrats" like Baucus and Kerry are siding with the fat cat insurance and drug companies over the people. I'm not absolving Obama either, Thom Hartmann has played a tape of him while he was running saying he was in favor of single payer. Now he's president and he sure isn't pushing single payer - so he comes off just like any other politician who says one thing trying to get elected and does something else once elected.

Not much is going to change until, if it ever happens again, there is no profit involved.

[Hubert Flottz]

94. **promising" to do better.

Why would you trust people to "Do Better" that could have started doing better 30 years ago and didn't?


Another grab your ankles moment...Prepare to meat thy weenie!

[mmonk]

95. You got it. The wolves got chicken house duty.

[notesdev]

97. Don't forget!

the $700 billion up-front bill for all this, on the specious promise of maybe saving money in the future. Given that government promises NEVER cost the stated price, but rather - through mismanagement and corruption - always amount to far more, often orders of magnitude more... I'd say this is turning into a foyal clusterruck.

[lostnotforgotten]

102. Obama Massive Fail On Health Care Reform

eom

[varelse]

104. They're pledging to reduce the growth of health care spending by 1.5%

That's like pledging to ease off the accelerator of a car speeding off of a bloody cliff. This is the great health care solution? It's not even a start.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

105. Agreed. Not even a start. nt

[TBF]

112. K&R n/t

[FLAprogressive]

115. K&R

[Dr.Phool]

116. Stinky, why do you hate America?

More change we can make believe in.

:puke:

[slipslidingaway]

120. knr nt

[valerief]

124. K&R

:kick:

[grantcart]

125. Who has been telling you to sit still and wait?

Certainly wasn't Obama. He made it clear that nothing was going to happen unless those that wanted change got up and demanded it.

[readmoreoften]

135. Well people are demanding it. So that means we're going to get it?

How can anyone "get up" and demand something in the US? If you get up and demand something, you get tasered. We expect letters and phone calls to suffice on issues like healthcare policy. If we need to mobilize in the streets to tell Obama to do what's obviously in the interest of the American people, then we'll probably end up mobilizing in the street to tell him to get the hell out of our way.

[irislake]

126. Single-payer government sponsored

would save far more.

[Eyerish]

127. K&R

[northernlights]

131. um, did anybody read through to page 2 of the article?

I don't think Obama has disowned we the people just yet, per this quote on page 2...

"Obama's proposal would establish a new government health insurance plan to compete with private insurers and cover the uninsured, but many Republicans and insurers argue that would undermine the private healthcare market."

[readmoreoften]

133. Cool will that be like "government backed student loans"?

Which allowed tuition to skyrocket and puts liens on graduates social security numbers if they can't pay when they don't get a job? If the government behaves like a profit-driven corporation or outsources to corporations, then its just another corporation. The problem here isn't who holds the insurance plan. The problem is INSURANCE and a PROFIT-DRIVEN health system.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

134. And?

You'd rather Obama invite baseball umpires, architects, and comic book illustrators to a discussion about how they can cut 2 trillion dollars from health care costs?

[asteroid2003QQ47]

138. You really think they'd do worse?

Consider that at least there's a chance they'd have some scruples.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

139. Yes.

I think if you're going to have a discussion about lowering health care costs, you talk with the people who charge the money for the health care.

If I have a complaint about the cost of dishwashers, I go complain to the dishwasher saleman. Not the kid who runs the drive thru at Taco Bell.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

142. I could live with the American Medical Association & the American Hospital Association...

but you want those rat bastards the America's Health Insurance Plans their too?
No fucking way is that acceptable!

[Enthusiast]

143. I agree with you, asteroid

The American health insurance industry does not deserve a cut of healthcare profits. They know it and they know we know it, and they are using their monetary resources to force a system on us that will preserve their undeserved largess. The moment President Obama allows single payer advocates a place at the table he becomes the enemy of the health insurance industry. This is an enemy we watched eviscerate Hillary Clinton.

[Mythsaje]

144. Insurance Company Profitability

That's the ultimate consideration behind ALL this shit. Screw the people, as long as the INSURANCE COMPANIES make their bottom line.

If the people understood this better, they'd be outraged. Not that the MSM is going to tell them.

[clear eye]

145. Don't mourn, Organize!

see my thread on the upcoming National Day of Action for Single Payer Healthcare here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5644516&mesg_id=5644516