"SINGLE PAYER" - The simplest solution!

[kpete]

The simplest solution...
byMattWuerker
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/18/1074896/-The-simplest-solution-?detail=hide

[earthside]

1. Right on!

I hope that the Supreme Court strikes down the 'individual mandate' of the 'Affordable Care Act'.

We need health care reform -- not health insurance reform.

It angers me to no end that we will be forced to buy insurance from private-for-profit (and allegedly not-for profit) insurance corporations.

The employer-based health insurance system we now have and that ACA puts on steroids is a disaster ... and the latest flap over contraception coverage is a prime example.

There is plenty of money to provide good health care for everyone in this nation if we eliminate the ravenous greed of the middleman, i.e., the insurance industry.

We don't have to settle for the mediocrity of the ACA -- single-payer is still the only real solution.

[cantbeserious]

2. Now, Now - What Would Good Republicans Do Without Insurance Industry Campaign Contributions?

eom

[obxhead]

23. Healthcare industry contributions go to both parties.

[cantbeserious]

28. No Argument - Which Party Benefits The Most From A Profit-Driven System?

IMHO, the reason that the Republicans are so against Obama's Health Care Reform is because it limits insurance company profits and requires money that would go to CEO salaries and Republican Party donations to be spent on patient outcomes.

Once again, IMHO, the Republicans can't have healthy citizens that might vote against conservative ideologies.

[obxhead]

40. The 1% party

The HC industry is running at a 3 to 12% profit margin to date. The 20% limit is no kind of limit at all by those standards. In fact they love the limit. At this point they can work with hospitals and skyrocket the costs of procedures. They are entitled to their 20% profit margin and you're required to pay the premium.

The insurance industry loves "Obamacare" That's why they didn't put up any kind of fight when it was Hillarycare or Romneycare. They Don't Care!!!! The only thing they objected to was a government regulated public (not for profit) option

Go ahead, mandate coverage and guarantee a profit?? Where should I send the check and how many zeros should I add?

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Two-thirds of Americans want single-payer

according to polls, as long as it's called Medicare for All.

If we can take back our government from the crazies and the triangulators, we should be good.

[shcrane71]

4. We need a PSA on triangulation: what is is and how it works.

I think if more Americans could recognize it, then we'd have a better democracy.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Wikipedia has the start of an explanation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_%28politics%29

Clinton and subsequent Democrats like Obama have practiced a particularly-awful form of triangulation - instead of moving midway between left and right, they push far to the right and only leave a bit of daylight between their positions and those of the Republicans. So everyone to the left of their positions (most of us) are compelled to vote for them instead of their even-further-right Republican opponent.

This also forces the Republicans further to the right in order to differentiate themselves from the Democrat. Then the Democrat triangulates even further to the right. And it keeps repeating until... well, here we are!

[shcrane71]

9. And who does this eventually benefit?

I guarantee that it's not me.

Thanks for the link. I'm reading over it.

[ProgressiveATL]

5. YES!

[abelenkpe]

7. K&R nt

[Cleita]

8. I've been beating this drum along with many others in the

health care field for more than thirty years and we still can't seem to come to this common sense solution. When California's single payer law was struck down by six democrats, recently, I finally gave up. It's going to take a draconian take down of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries first before single payer can become a reality. I've stopped holding my breath.

[Cosmocat]

10. Jesus

6 Ds sided against it ...

Would it have passed the chamber if they had voted for it?

[Cleita]

11. They only needed two votes in the Senate to pass it.

Governor Brown said he would not veto it like Arnold had if it passed both houses. The Assembly passed it. Six Democrats refused to vote in the Senate and we only needed two. But we couldn't even get two out of those six. That's how powerful the health insurance industry is that even our Democrats have sold out to them.

We need a campaign that targets them and gets them out of business at least in California so we can move ahead with single payer. It will take draconian efforts like getting all businesses and unions to refuse to do business with them. Of course once they no longer are in business, then we can move in with a Medicare like government run insurance to replace the private insurance so that the unions and businesses can buy it for their employees. It's a start and a matter of folding in medicaid and other public plans to cover everyone.

Once California gets the ball rolling, the other states will follow, hopefully, but I don't have much hope. It would take such a huge grass roots effort to do it, plus I'm sure the insurance companies will fight back with every dirty tactic in the book against running them out of doing business the state but that's what it would take.

[SunSeeker]

37. Brown didn't offer any support, just said he wouldn't veto. Sheesh.

I feel your pain, Cleita. I gave money to the One California campaign, and after what happened in Vermont, I thought we had a chance. I am so disappointed in Governor Brown. I know he's got a lot on his plate. Like President Obama, he inherited a huge hot mess left to him by an idiotic Republican. But still. We were soooo close. If only he had turned the screws on those traitorous, gutless dems a little. I called their offices right before the vote, but of course all I got was a recording. He could have at last held a press conference and blasted them for their cowardice. But no. Nothing. Zip. So much for living in a blue state.

[Cleita]

38. You got recordings. How gutless of them. I actually got people and one Congressman's office was

down right rude to me, and then hung up on me. I hope they get run out of office and are replaced by better Democrats.

[Cosmocat]

42. This maddens more so much

we have the most cockeyed and ineffective management of healthcare on the planet, and it is not even close.

And, SOMEHOW, the message three years ago from the "liberal media" was that it was the greatest attack on freedom in our history.

It makes even more sense to BUSINESS (outside of the insurance industry), they bear the greatest cost, and a single payer system would cut costs and allow for individuals to actually pay a proportionate amount.

But, somehow, the party of business fights tooth and nail to keep this system.

This is the single most beneficial thing we could do from an economic standpoint in this country.

[Politicalboi]

31. I'm hoping this war on women

Will force a single payer system. If the states make abortion illegal, the fed's have to step in somehow I would hope.

[deacon]

12. Awesome. k/r

[on point]

13. Part of the solution to medicare funding is single payer

Simply by cutting costs to what other single payer countries typically pay per person for health care costs we could dramatically improve the medicare funding problem. But no, we have a crisis but can't discuss how to cut the cost in half!!

[bornskeptic]

15. Medicare's single-payer now. Why does it cost$11,000 per person/year?

That's not even counting out of pocket costs and Medigap premiums, and many Seniors on Medicare end up in Medicaid as well. The truth is that countries in Europe with mandatory insurance systems ( including Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands) don't have significantly higher costs per capita than the single payer countries in Europe (including the UK, Spain, Italy and Portugal). Japan, where most people other than the unemployed and Seniors are privately insured, has far lower per person costs than any of them. The problem of healthcare costs in the United States has very little to do with the insurance companies, and it can't be fixed by turning their business over to the government. It's a hugely complicated problem, which no simple little trick is going to solve.

[CTyankee]

17. nonsense. It is the overall cost of our health care keeps going up and of course that has to do

with the insurance for profit companies. They get their profits and you simply cannot make a profit insuring old and or sick people. Which is why you had people denied health care that they needed because of "pre-existing conditions."

Countries with universal health care basically offer systems where the money is either collected by and provided by the government or where the money is collected primarily from the government but distributed to individual NON-PROFIT companies. These companies CANNOT by law make a profit. In many countries private insurance is available but basic, excellent health care for all is not in the hands (and at the whim of) private for-profit companies. By every benchmark used in assessing the excellence of a country's public health, the U.S. lags behind the countries with universal health care that the government largely supports.

What saves money in all of these systems, and assures more equitable and better health care, is the elimination of the profit motive. And that has EVERYTHING to do with the kind of private health care insurance we have in this country.

[sabrina 1]

19. Exactly! n/t

[bornskeptic]

27. In Germany and Switzerland, the insurance companies must provide basic on a nonprofirt basis.

In the Netherlands, not for profit companies and for profit companies compete in selling basic insurance, and it works fine. Of course, in Switzerland and Germany insurance companies sell supplemental insurance for profit.I'd be the last one to deny that the US system stinks, but the problem is lack of proper regulation. You can dream as much as you like about a single payer system for the US, but it won't happen in your lifetime or mine. The Affordable Care Act follows the only feasible path to achieving universal healthcare in this country.

[CTyankee]

29. from what I have read the private for profit health insurance in most of these countries is for

extras such as a private hospital room, not the basic care that everyone is entitled to. And also from my understanding private companies competing in selling basic insurance elsewhere are incentivized by the government. In any case, health care is heavily regulated by government and largely financed through different channels.

I don't see how the ACA can succeed in its goal to provide affordable and comprehensive health care unless the for profit health insurance companies are prevented from collecting the profits they now collect. As I said, providing health care to sick and/or old people is not profitable.

So tell me how these health insurance companies in the U.S. are going to make universal health feasible in the U.S.? By telling their stockholders "sorry!"

[AndyTiedye]

39. The ACA DOES Limit Insurance Company Profits

…by forcing them to spend 85% of premiums on actual health care.

That IS a big deal, and the insurance companies don't like it one bit.

[CTyankee]

43. Thanks for reminding me of that. I wish more people were aware, as you are.

The lies and distortions about the ACA are so outrageous and believed by so many people that I truly despair that we will ever have truly decent health care in this country. I remember my hope back in 2007, hearing all the Dems gearing up for the presidential primaries, talking about their plans, which all included the public option. And John Edwards, IMO, said it best: "You can't sit down with these people [the health insurance companies}. They will take all the food." It is too bad that such wisdom came out of the mouth of such a flawed human being...

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. I wish there was a politcal party that supported this.

Civilized countries manage to do this.

I say to hell with the insurance companies. They are nothing but parasites, growing fat on human suffering.

And let's nationalize the pharmaceutical houses while we're at it. They don't want to make new antibiotics because they can't figure out a way to make us buy them and take them every day.

Health care should not be a commodity. It should be a right.

[sabrina 1]

18. Good post, I agree. The 'middlemen' provide nothing in the way of HC. All they do is

gobble up funds for profit that should and would be going directly to HC if they did not have their hands held out to capture at least 20% of that money before it reaches the people.

Overhead for Medicaid eg, without any private hands dipping in the cookie jar, was approx 3%. They are a useless commodity whose sole purpose is profit. Public funds should never have been allowed to pass through their greedy hands.

[kenny blankenship]

26. There is.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

16. Tommy Douglas, New Socialist Party, leader talks about Mouseland.

Tommy Douglas, was the New Socialist Party leader in Saskatchewan. He got universal health care passed in Saskatchewan, and in 1962 got universal health care extended to all of Canada. This speech was made in 1961. Tommy Douglas is consistently cited in polls as the greatest Canadian of all time.

Donald Sutherland is married to his daughter.
Cartoon animation introduced by Kiefer Sutherland, his grandson:

This video was sent to me by Rafael Zambrano, the man who rescued the cute little white dog named Boney. I am honored to be his friend. I used to go to parties at his house where he would show us SICKO and a speech by Mohammed Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank and originator of micro-loans.

[andym]

20. Too bad that the conservatives have convinced a large segment of the population that free market is

magically more efficient than anything the government might do such as single-payer. Things seem to be going the other way, such as medicare cuts or more restricted access (raising the eligibility).

[Cleita]

22. Except that they don't practice free market.

If they did, there would be a public option to buy into in Obamacare. That would be real free market. The hypocrisy is always near the surface, isn't it?

[Odin2005]

21. YUP!

[Trillo]

24. I know we're supposed to be encouraging, and Single Payer would sure help a lot of folks (99%),

but is Single Payer somewhat like the Hydrogen Powered cars we've been enticed with since about 1925? In other words, the wonderful "carrot" solution that TPTB will never allow? How many years did Conyers have the proposal up? Before that, didn't Hillary sometimes advocate for it? I'm not sure how many years it's been discussed, but probably at least since the 1980s. A search indicates farther back to the early 1900s.

Gotta get rid of Corporate PersonHood first. Then maybe some of these other positives shall come to pass.

[kenny blankenship]

25. There is no alternative.

[Fool Count]

30. Not true, there is even a simpler one - no payer.

Put all medical professionals on government salaries and don't charge anyone anything
for medical services.

[stlsaxman]

33. but- but what would Organised Crime do for a living? we took away Prohibition and they

turned to what they new best- "Insurance".

[NorthCarolina]

32. The GOP would NEVER go for it because it helps people....

many of which they consider "undesireables" (ie those making less than 1 mil/year).

[Canuckistanian]

34. As a Canadian, I have to tell you it's a no-brainer.

I don't worry about any of that shit on the left hand side of that panel. Not one of those things come between me and my doctor.

[Kennah]

35. This graphic simplifies it for even the slowest of fish

http://www.oecd.org/document/38/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_48289894_1_1_1_1,00.html

U.S. spends 17.4% of GDP on health, we have 50+ million uninsured, and another 50+ million underinsured.

The other OECD nations provide coverage to all, cheaper.

[midnight]

36. Beautifully illustrated!

[denem]

41. Yes! n/t.