Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Do any of you feel that with more support from Congress Obama would have pushed, and probably even won, single payer healthcare? After all, isn't that what he campaigned on in 2008?

Here's a first hand report of what happened in 2009.

Obama to Single Payer Advocates: Drop Dead

Corporate Crime Reporter
March 3, 2009
President Obama’s White House made crystal clear this week: a Canadian-style, Medicare-for-all, single payer health insurance system is off the table.


Obama doesn’t even want to discuss it.


Take the case of Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan).


Conyers is the leading advocate for single payer health insurance in Congress.


Last week, Conyers attended a Congressional Black Caucus meeting with President Obama at the White House.


During the meeting, Congressman Conyers, sponsor of the single payer bill in the House (HR 676), asked President Obama for an invite to the President’s Marchy 5 health care summit at the White House.


Conyers said he would bring along with him two doctors — Dr. Marcia Angell and Dr. Quentin Young — to represent the majority of physicians in the United States who favor single payer.


Obama would have none of it.


This week, by e-mail, Conyers heard back from the White House — no invite.
Why not?


Well, believe it or not, the Obama White House is under the thumb of the health insurance industry.


Obama has become the industry’s chief enforcer of its key demand: single payer health insurance is off the table.


Earlier this week, Obama named his health reform leadership team — Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle.


Single payer advocates were not happy.


Since leaving Medicare, DeParle cashed in as a director at major for profit health care corporations, including Medco Health Solutions, Cerner, Boston Scientific, DaVita, and Triad Hospitals.


Now, what does the health insurance industry make of the Sebelius/DeParle team?


Here is Karen Ignagni, president of the lead health insurance lobbying group, America’s Health Insurance Plans:


“Today the President is putting in place a team that is ready on day one to provide the leadership necessary to achieve health care reform. Governor Sebelius is the right person to move the President’s health care agenda forward. She is a proven leader with extensive knowledge of health care issues and a long history of working effectively across the political aisle. As a former CMS administrator, Nancy-Ann DeParle brings considerable experience and a strong track record working on all of the health care issues facing the nation.”


Karen sounds really upset, right?


Dr. David Himmelstein is a founder and spokesperson for Physicians for a National Health Program.


Himmelstein’s take — Obama is caving to the insurance industry.


“The President once acknowledged that single payer reform was the best option, but now he’s caving in to corporate healthcare interests and completely shutting out advocates of single payer reform,” Himmelstein said. “The majority of Americans favor single payer, and it’s the most popular reform option among doctors and health economists, but no single payer supporter has been invited to participate in the administration’s health care summit. Meanwhile, he’s appointed as his health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, a woman who has made her living advising health care investors and sits on the board of many for-profit firms that have made billions from Medicare. Her appointment — and the invitation list to the healthcare summit — is a clear signal that the administration plans to propose a corporate-friendly health reform that has no chance of actually solving our health care crisis.”


Obama to single payer advocates: drop dead.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/march/...ingle_paye.php

Originally Posted by playwrite

You really thought you had the place all to yourself?

There are several tons of good and wannabe fiction writers; I'm just suggesting you should raise your game a little.

Sorry for already taking the space alien choice. Vampires not getting covered under Obamacare for blood transfusions might be one direction, although vampires have gotten a little passe. Zombies are always good; could you make your next Obamacare suffering friend a zombie? Maybe he got bite on the leg and Obamacare wouldn't cover the amputation; now he's in his mom's basement and the moaning is keeping her up all night and that too isn't covered by the evil Obamacare. Now that's getting pretty cool.

She could be on fanfiction.net, for all we know.

A public option is to single payer what civil unions are to same-sex marriage.

And didn't Vermont lead the way with civil unions?

Originally Posted by The Rani

The one Obamaphile that I know called me up last night to complain about his old insurance company and his inability to find a new one. He has a pre-existing mental health condition, but apparently isn't seeing the new benefits that he is supposed to be getting ... yet? Ever?
Karma's a bitch, I suppose. It looks like people are going to find out the hard way.

And playdude, before you spin off into crazy-town again, no he does not live in a Red State. Unless Illinois went Red all of a sudden.

What you could possibly mean by "karma's a bitch" is very mysterious.

Every report I've heard is that hospitals add dozens of procedures and hidden costs to peoples' bills that are not needed by patients, and that drug costs are much cheaper if you don't go through insurance companies, as Dr. Belk said. Health care is just way too expensive in all areas, and that means here in the USA.

Here's some charts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_3998425.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...are-ludicrous/

Someone left this on my facebook page. I have to say, there's a lot of truth in his statement.

"The USA approach to healthcare is a byproduct its protestant theology. According to it, 'Salvation' is personal and thus has no bearing on the wider community, its basically all about personal piety. The same approach has been filtered into your healthcare policies - A man works hard, pays his insurance, thus he deserves good healthcare....why should he be responsible for anyone else's 'healthcare' or 'salvation', is how the argument runs."

Originally Posted by Deb C

Someone left this on my facebook page. I have to say, there's a lot of truth in his statement.

"The USA approach to healthcare is a byproduct its protestant theology. According to it, 'Salvation' is personal and thus has no bearing on the wider community, its basically all about personal piety. The same approach has been filtered into your healthcare policies - A man works hard, pays his insurance, thus he deserves good healthcare....why should he be responsible for anyone else's 'healthcare' or 'salvation', is how the argument runs."

But this same argument can in effect be made regarding car insurance, which works in the same manner. It is required by law just about everywhere now, but in some ways each of us who carries is is also somewhat responsible for the carelessness of others, as it is party our premiums that have to pay for such, even if we never have a car crash ourselves.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

But this same argument can in effect be made regarding car insurance, which works in the same manner. It is required by law just about everywhere now, but in some ways each of us who carries is is also somewhat responsible for the carelessness of others, as it is party our premiums that have to pay for such, even if we never have a car crash ourselves.

But it's different, die-hard avowed life long pedestrians are not forced to buy it. Nor are the Amish forced to carry auto insurance on their horse.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

But this same argument can in effect be made regarding car insurance, which works in the same manner. It is required by law just about everywhere now, but in some ways each of us who carries is is also somewhat responsible for the carelessness of others, as it is party our premiums that have to pay for such, even if we never have a car crash ourselves.

Unless you live in a rural area, there is *public* transportation available. No one is mandated to drive a vehicle. In fact, those who live in big cities find it more convenient and less costly to use public transportation. As far as I know, drivers in most states are only required to have liability insurance that protects the other driver. Maybe I'm wrong about that? There's probably others who know more about it than I do.

If we choose not to own a car, we're not fined if we don't buy private insurance. So as I see it, there is a difference.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

But it's different, die-hard avowed life long pedestrians are not forced to buy it. Nor are the Amish forced to carry auto insurance on their horse.

But to carry the argument to it's logical conclusion, those without a car need not carry car insurance, and those without a body need not carry health insurance...

The point of the analogy (as I see it) is that there is a public safety aspect to not carrying health insurance, if the non-carrier could get sick, not treat the illness, then spread disease to the general public...

As an example, tuberculosis is making a comeback in the USA because some folks without health insurance don't get treatment.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Nah, I was speaking about all of us on this forum. I've always respected you and what you have to say. I realize we are not always on the same page when it comes to politics, but we are respectful toward one another.

Without going into too much depth here; The feeling is mutual, Deb.


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Deb

That says volumes about your character.

In a "good" way?

Originally Posted by Deb C

Someone left this on my facebook page. I have to say, there's a lot of truth in his statement.

"The USA approach to healthcare is a byproduct its protestant theology. According to it, 'Salvation' is personal and thus has no bearing on the wider community, its basically all about personal piety. The same approach has been filtered into your healthcare policies - A man works hard, pays his insurance, thus he deserves good healthcare....why should he be responsible for anyone else's 'healthcare' or 'salvation', is how the argument runs."

This is why the progressives need to counter this "Protestant" message with a "Catholic" one - and Pope Francis has just presented them with precisely that opportunity.

But no, the left would rather go about their merry way, destroying the institution of marriage, and telling unborn children who have scores of millions of perspective adoptive parents to, quite literally, drop dead.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Unless you live in a rural area, there is *public* transportation available. No one is mandated to drive a vehicle. In fact, those who live in big cities find it more convenient and less costly to use public transportation. As far as I know, drivers in most states are only required to have liability insurance that protects the other driver. Maybe I'm wrong about that? There's probably others who know more about it than I do.

If we choose not to own a car, we're not fined if we don't buy private insurance. So as I see it, there is a difference.

OH, *someone* is either from back east, the Pacific Northwest, or a condensed, un-sprawling megalopolis. Believe me, in a lot of cities - yes, indeed, cities - in the Southwest and the Rocky Mountain West, there is public transportation as you define it along a handful of main corridors. The cost of living close to those main corridors goes up accordingly. For the rest?

This bus runs every 45 minutes, more of less, but the schedule has been tweaked until you can't be sure. There is a printed schedule for the major stops, but at the lesser stops, you have to be really good at interpolation, guesswork, and getting there early and waiting.

This other bus runs every hour on the 15 minutes, just enough time to walk to the stop to get home. Except that they tweaked that down to 12 minutes, a good exercise for people who want to increase their speed in the next 5K race.

These are near the main corridor. The bus that serves the South Valley is worse. The buses that serve the west side amount to you drive to park'n'ride service to catch one of the two expresses that connect the two sides of the river; and the west side is almost as populous as the rest of the city. The suburbs? Well, there's the Rail Runner - oh, but that's a socialist waste of the taxpayer's money.

The suburbs where the poorer people live? Forget IT!

Such is life in the car-driven West.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

OH, *someone* is either from back east, the Pacific Northwest, or a condensed, un-sprawling megalopolis. Believe me, in a lot of cities - yes, indeed, cities - in the Southwest and the Rocky Mountain West, there is public transportation as you define it along a handful of main corridors. The cost of living close to those main corridors goes up accordingly. For the rest?

This bus runs every 45 minutes, more of less, but the schedule has been tweaked until you can't be sure. There is a printed schedule for the major stops, but at the lesser stops, you have to be really good at interpolation, guesswork, and getting there early and waiting.

This other bus runs every hour on the 15 minutes, just enough time to walk to the stop to get home. Except that they tweaked that down to 12 minutes, a good exercise for people who want to increase their speed in the next 5K race.

These are near the main corridor. The bus that serves the South Valley is worse. The buses that serve the west side amount to you drive to park'n'ride service to catch one of the two expresses that connect the two sides of the river; and the west side is almost as populous as the rest of the city. The suburbs? Well, there's the Rail Runner - oh, but that's a socialist waste of the taxpayer's money.

The suburbs where the poorer people live? Forget IT!

Such is life in the car-driven West.

Now I know why you opted for the bicycle.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

But it's different, die-hard avowed life long pedestrians are not forced to buy it. Nor are the Amish forced to carry auto insurance on their horse.

On the other hand, the medical community, especially acute-care hosptials with Emergency Rooms, are required to care for all comers, insured or not. They also get to eat the bill. It's a Federal law.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Unless you live in a rural area outside a major metropolitan area, there is *public* transportation available. No one is mandated to drive a vehicle. In fact, those who live in big cities find it more convenient and less costly to use public transportation. As far as I know, drivers in most states are only required to have liability insurance that protects the other driver. Maybe I'm wrong about that? There's probably others who know more about it than I do.

If we choose not to own a car, we're not fined if we don't buy private insurance. So as I see it, there is a difference.

Fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

OH, *someone* is either from back east, the Pacific Northwest, or a condensed, un-sprawling megalopolis. Believe me, in a lot of cities - yes, indeed, cities - in the Southwest and the Rocky Mountain West, there is public transportation as you define it along a handful of main corridors. The cost of living close to those main corridors goes up accordingly. For the rest?
.

I live in the Mid West. Public transportation here, even in the suburbs where some of our less fortunate live, there is Metro Link and bus service. But as you go to the west of the city there is less service. Some of the nursing homes in the suburbs where the more affluent live, have creatively bought their own bus (small) to pick up employees who don't have access to a car.

For sure there is a great need for a timely public transportation in many areas of our country.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Fixed it for you.

Just not true in my area of the world. And, I live in a very conservative State.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

This is why the progressives need to counter this "Protestant" message with a "Catholic" one - and Pope Francis has just presented them with precisely that opportunity.

But no, the left would rather go about their merry way, destroying the institution of marriage, and telling unborn children who have scores of millions of perspective adoptive parents to, quite literally, drop dead.

There is a case moving into the Supreme Court that challenges the right of RC-owned and operated hospitals to refuse abortions to women clearly at risk of dying. The hosptial in question was the only one within reasonable distance, and the next closest one was also an RC-owned and operated hospital.

In this case, a woman presented with an 18-week old fetus and hemoraging. The hospital stopped the bleeding and sent her home ... twice. On the third visit, she was bleeding profusely, and the fetus miscarried. After that, they treated her, but she suffered permanent injuries.

So no, the RC absolutist view of abortion is clearly unacceptable. Will a majority RC judiciary (6 of the 9) favor the woman or the church?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Do any of you feel that with more support from Congress Obama would have pushed, and probably even won, single payer healthcare? After all, isn't that what he campaigned on in 2008?

Only if he also promised everyone a magic pony that pooped gold nuggets.

Other than that- no way. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no clue as to how the US Congress actually works (or more precisely, "doesn't work").

Originally Posted by Deb C

Here's a first hand report of what happened in 2009.

Obama to Single Payer Advocates: Drop Dead

Corporate Crime Reporter
March 3, 2009
President Obama’s White House made crystal clear this week: a Canadian-style, Medicare-for-all, single payer health insurance system is off the table.


Obama doesn’t even want to discuss it.


Take the case of Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan).


Conyers is the leading advocate for single payer health insurance in Congress.


Last week, Conyers attended a Congressional Black Caucus meeting with President Obama at the White House.


During the meeting, Congressman Conyers, sponsor of the single payer bill in the House (HR 676), asked President Obama for an invite to the President’s Marchy 5 health care summit at the White House.


Conyers said he would bring along with him two doctors — Dr. Marcia Angell and Dr. Quentin Young — to represent the majority of physicians in the United States who favor single payer.


Obama would have none of it.


This week, by e-mail, Conyers heard back from the White House — no invite.
Why not?


Well, believe it or not, the Obama White House is under the thumb of the health insurance industry.


Obama has become the industry’s chief enforcer of its key demand: single payer health insurance is off the table.


Earlier this week, Obama named his health reform leadership team — Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle.


Single payer advocates were not happy.


Since leaving Medicare, DeParle cashed in as a director at major for profit health care corporations, including Medco Health Solutions, Cerner, Boston Scientific, DaVita, and Triad Hospitals.


Now, what does the health insurance industry make of the Sebelius/DeParle team?


Here is Karen Ignagni, president of the lead health insurance lobbying group, America’s Health Insurance Plans:


“Today the President is putting in place a team that is ready on day one to provide the leadership necessary to achieve health care reform. Governor Sebelius is the right person to move the President’s health care agenda forward. She is a proven leader with extensive knowledge of health care issues and a long history of working effectively across the political aisle. As a former CMS administrator, Nancy-Ann DeParle brings considerable experience and a strong track record working on all of the health care issues facing the nation.”


Karen sounds really upset, right?


Dr. David Himmelstein is a founder and spokesperson for Physicians for a National Health Program.


Himmelstein’s take — Obama is caving to the insurance industry.


“The President once acknowledged that single payer reform was the best option, but now he’s caving in to corporate healthcare interests and completely shutting out advocates of single payer reform,” Himmelstein said. “The majority of Americans favor single payer, and it’s the most popular reform option among doctors and health economists, but no single payer supporter has been invited to participate in the administration’s health care summit. Meanwhile, he’s appointed as his health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, a woman who has made her living advising health care investors and sits on the board of many for-profit firms that have made billions from Medicare. Her appointment — and the invitation list to the healthcare summit — is a clear signal that the administration plans to propose a corporate-friendly health reform that has no chance of actually solving our health care crisis.”


Obama to single payer advocates: drop dead.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/march/...ingle_paye.php

One line destroys this fantasy world of Debs -

Corporations don't vote in the U.S. Senate.

Now corporations may influence those votes, but if they do so, it is only by spending money to help those Senators convince you to vote for them. The key here is you; you are voting for those Senators because you like the commercials the cooperation pay for. And most importantly, you will turn into screaming banshees ready to burn any Senator at the stake that the corporations run a commercial telling us that Senator is going to cancel your employer-based insurance and bring millions of undeserving lazy, if not illegal immigrants, onto your entitled precious Medicare and destroy it.

Anyone not understanding this is not in the game, they're not even in the peanut gallery; they're far from the stadium talking to themselves.

Obama understood this, and rather become a lame duck in his 2nd year and loss both Houses of Congress, he decide to, well, actually do something. Others can wait for their magic ponies to poop gold nuggets.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Unless you live in a rural area, there is *public* transportation available. No one is mandated to drive a vehicle. In fact, those who live in big cities find it more convenient and less costly to use public transportation. As far as I know, drivers in most states are only required to have liability insurance that protects the other driver. Maybe I'm wrong about that? There's probably others who know more about it than I do.

If we choose not to own a car, we're not fined if we don't buy private insurance. So as I see it, there is a difference.

If you choose not to drive a car, you do not add to the risk pool and therefore do not impact other peoples' insurance rates.

If you choose not to have health insurance, you still pose a risk of cost (at the emergency room) and you very much add to the costs of health care including the cost of insurance.

Out in California today - the "Inland Empire" to be more precise.

I'm not into anecdotes so much, but the talk around here among the "little people" is the CA Exchange is the best thing that has happened since the Beach Boys.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

On the other hand, the medical community, especially acute-care hosptials with Emergency Rooms, are required to care for all comers, insured or not. They also get to eat the bill. It's a Federal law.

This is why we are in such a bind in this country. I have great insurance but when I was hospitalized a couple of weeks ago, my co-pay was $500. That doesn't include the specialists, ER, and radiologists. I'm thankful that I have the means to pay. But many, even with insurance, don't have it. And, $500 to them, may seem like a fortune. The so called insurance policies that are being offered through the ACA, are in some regards, a joke. Numerous patients will still end up in emergency rooms, which is the most expensive service, because they want to avoid the steep doctor co-pays, they often put off their much needed appointments.

Being under insured, is just as bad as not being insured for a large population in this country. Again, the main winners in the ACA are those who can steal their millions of dollars in salaries and profits from people who just want some sort of protection from bankruptcy. Meanwhile, these gangster CEO's can fly around in their private jets and afford to send their hoards of the most powerful lobbyists to Washington, where they then wheel and deal to assure that their coffers will continue to be fed with our hard earned money.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Do any of you feel that with more support from Congress Obama would have pushed, and probably even won, single payer healthcare? After all, isn't that what he campaigned on in 2008?

I don't have time to Google it right now, but I distinctly recall that he did not call for a single payer health plan as a candidate in 2007/2008. I think his plan for the exchanges did include a public option, which was dropped from the final legislation by Congress.