Should We Replace Our Current Universal Single Payer System With The HCR Bills Being Considered?

[TomCADem]

Absolutely Not!!! :freak:

:think:

Oh wait! Are you saying that we do not have a universal single payer system? We have a screwed up system that is both the most expensive in the world, but also ineffective and distributing care?

<>

If so, then why aren't we talking more about how the current bills compare to the status quo, rather than comparing the bills to some utopian ideal of a universal single payer system that currently is not in place. If such a system was in place, then we just need to stick with status quo, and not change anything. However, the status quo is messed up, and the current bills under consideration are a vast improvement over the status quo. If the bills fail, we are stuck with the status quo. It is that simple. The failure of the bills under consideration are not going causing some utopian system of health care to emerge and replace the status quo. We need to fight for the best reform we can get right now, and that effort is embodied in the bills being considered by the House and Senate.

Are the current bills an improvement over the status quo? The answer is a resounding yes. 31 million more people will be insured. Low income households will get subsidies for coverage. Insurance companies cannot drop coverage for pre-existing conditions. That should be the focus along with improving the bills.

[Cleita]

1. Actually, why don't we put that question out to our Canadian DUers and

see if they would want to replace their Medicare system with our HCR bills being offered. It should be interesting. Also, maybe we should ask any other nationals, with national health care, how it compares to their system?

[enlightenment]

2. Indeed.

It seems a bit odd to use a graph comparing the US to nations that have some form of nationalized, single payer health care when the purpose of the post is just another long-winded 'you single payer advocates need to shut up' message . . .

[TomCADem]

5. Single Payer Advocates Are Fine. Its The Just Say No Crowd. Look at the AFL-CIO

The AFL-CIO supports single payer. However, they also support the bills working there way through Congress. No one is telling anyone not to support single payer. Rather, just don't sabotage efforts to reform health care by comparing the bills to a system that does not exist.

[TomCADem]

8. What's The Point Of Asking Canadians? Their Status Quo Is Not Our Status Quo

[LWolf]

3. Why aren't we comparing the current bills to the status quo?

Because the current bills are in some ways worse, in few ways better, and will bog down the work on a better health care system for a long time to come.

[TomCADem]

6. How is the denial of pre-existing conditions better than the bills being considered?

How is leaving 31 million people uninsured better than the bills being considered?

How is eliminating limits on coverage a good thing?


Again, if you have a nice table or graph that compares the status quo with the bills, and shows the status quo as the superior option, I would absolutely love to see it.

[LWolf]

10. I don't see you offering a nice table or graph

to show that the current bill is better than the status quo.

For the record...I don't like the status quo. I want it to change. This bill is not the right way to do so.

How is government mandating that people purchase private insurance better than not?

How is shifting from health CARE reform to health INSURANCE reform, making sure that private, for-profit insurance companies are protected better than the people needing care, better than not?

How is sticking to a "free market" philosophy that can create a "sub-prime" market for poor and working people better than what we have now?

How is the Stupak amendment somehow "better?"

How is the bill in its current form not a giveaway to insurance corporations?


And, most pointedly, how is insurance somehow synonymous with care?

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. You ask "If so, then why aren't we talking more about how...

....the current bills compare to the status quo."

The status quo is only slightly less popular here than it is in the Senate GOP caucus, granted for different reasons.

It is the very terribleness of the status quo will bring single payer, if only the terribleness is terrible enough, and it will be, if we just wait long enough.

People with pre-existing conditions, or who have suffered recission, or could obtain insurance with the proposed subsidies will understand their role in the scheme of things, and we will honor their sacrifice with a day, or something.

Comparing the House and Senate bills to the status quo?

That would be pragmatic, and sensible, and boring -- and this is DU.

Ain't gonna happen.

[BzaDem]

7. + 1.

[TomCADem]

9. Thanks - Why Is There So Little Discussion Of Whether These Bills Help Most American Families

Instead, the vast bulk of posts dominated with fiery slogans:

1. "Its the enslavement of the American people to corporations!"

2. "Its fascism!"

3. "Single Payer Or No Reform!"

Sadly, the posts on DU echo the media coverage on both the left and the right. No one gets into the weeds. It is rare to get a non-heated discussion of whether most families would benefit from the bills. The answer is yes. See NY Times inteactive graphic:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-comparison.html

My opinion from the beginning has been to get the absolute best reform you can get. If it helps the American people overall, then vote for it. I think the bills generally meet this threshold.

A pragmatic and boring discussion? Absolutely. What's in it for me and when?

Holding out for single payer a decade from now really does not help me now or in the near future. I am so young that I think I have all the time in the world to wait for reforms, and I see the status quo getting worse.