I submit: In regards to health care IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT IS!

[calteacherguy]

As long as it's a Democratic President!

What we need is a Congress with the political will to pass significant health care reform, and a Democratic President who will not veto what Congress passes. All of the different health care blueprints that candidates are "unveiling" are secondary to the political will of the Congress AND getting a DEMOCRATIC president in office...any Democratic President.

Am I missing something here?

[luckyleftyme2]

1. we need national health-care system

We cannot compete with the western world without it. Think how many of our industries have folded because of health care premiums.
That honda or hyundai plant isn't paying 100% of the employees health insurance. nor
are they paying high wages.
Its time we get competitive again. Its time the american workers take home percentage of gross pay equaled Canada's,England's and other western nations.
and maybe some day we'll get the same vacation time other nations have. We've been lied to far to long by big business!

[Lasher]

2. Kucinich is the only candidate who supports single payer universal health care

And right now it looks like he has a snowball's chance of winning the Democratic primary. Unless we're able to disconnect the insurance companies from the US health care teat, I don't see how we'll able to do anything better than sticking band aids on a broken system.

Holy cow, it's not that complicated. Just look around and see what countries have a healthcare system that's better than ours and do what they're doing. Those countries are not hard to find. Try looking at every other industrialized nation.

http://kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php

[rucky]

10. He's the leader I want.

and I'm voting for him. I hope others vote for the leader they want, as well. If his chances aren't realistic, then that says more about society than it does about him. It's REALITY and society needs to change, and the only way to do that is to first commit to an alternative. A leader that will set us on the right path, as opposed to one whose vision is blocked by false barriers that prevent them from even proposing what they know is right.

[Lasher]

13. I'm leaning that way but I haven't made up my mind.

I need to see where he stands on other issues. And I am reluctant to make a choice this early in the game. That doesn't mean other folks are wrong if they have decided on a candidate. That's just me.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Does he have a record of getting his initiatives through Congress?

:shrug:

[doggyboy]

3. I disagree

Though I do think any democratic president will do more to help those who are not getting the health care they need, there are significant differences that will result depending on which candidate we elect. Some candidates are more dedicated to the issue than others. Some have more experience with the issue. Some have more personal and professional connections to leaders in the medical industry, etc. And some have a record of achievement in shepherding legislation to passage. When making such profound changes on an issue that affects us all so deeply, these factors count.

[leftofthedial]

4. I'm not confident that a substantive improvement will happen

even with a "Democratic" president and a "Democratic" majority in Congress. The insurance companies/banking industry still own too many in Congress and will find a way to preserve the status quo.

[FormerDittoHead]

20. I agree. With 68 Dem Congressmen needlessly voting for an unpopular war, I doubt this will happen...

title explanation: 68 Democrats could have voted against the 5/24 supplemental spending bill, and it STILL would have passed, but that many more actually voted for the war, even though ~77% of ALL the people are against it.

Oh my! Talk about universal healthcare! Now, think of all those "workers" who work for the medical insurance companies. Think about the jobs lost! You know the jobs: the ones who tell you what medical services you can and can't have, depending upon your coverage and your illness.

Oh, wait. I forgot, we live in a free country. You're free to pay for your own cat scans and operations....

Oh, and before I forget to put this in: :sarcasm: (I should put that on a hotkey or something)

So, I'm looking at Blue Cross, et al, and Pharma, and all of the other not so small companies whose profit margins are what they are thanks to US, and not to all of those other, better educated "commie" countries which have those "evil" regulations and unnecessary high life expectancies and lower rates of infant mortality, etc....

I'm also looking at our dear 68 Democratic Congresspersons who NEEDLESSLY voted for the Iraqi spending bill... I mean, damn, it STILL would have passed - but they don't even want to give us the IMPRESSION they're going to do what we want!

So, while I do think that Kerry's plan for coverage for children will eventually pass, but we've got to start waking up and realize that while the Democrats ARE way better than the Republicans, we're not going to be able to TRUST them much more!

[JTFrog]

5. Insurance and Big Pharma.

The Dem's can't stand up to Bush, how are they gonna stand up to the real owners of this country?

The lesser of two evils is a shitty choice to have to be continually faced with. Enough of this two party system crap. It's time for serious reform from the roots up.

[doggyboy]

6. Because now, even big business is starting to support it

Detroit is now in favor of health care reform, along with other industries who would love to see their health care costs "externalized". It used to be that all big business was against UHC, for fear of tax increases. Economics has belatedly taught them that it is less expensive to have UHC.

IOW, there's a significant difference between now and then

[Lasher]

12. Big business is not supporting universal healthcare

Prompted by big business, Junior is selling a plan to end employer provided healthcare without offering a replacement like universal healthcare. This is a scheme to make employees accountable for their own bare bones health insurance policies. And to encourage employees to discontinue coverage if they are lucky enough to still have good policies with their employers, Junior's plan is to tax all employer provided healthcare as income if it ammounts to anything more than catastrophic-only.

There is a real danger in any healthcare 'reforms' that are anything less than single provider universal healthcare like Canadians enjoy. Kinda like Social Security, in that the biggest danger to the program is the 'reforms' Junior wants to employ to 'save' it.

[doggyboy]

16. I'm aware of bush's sham plan

but the corporate support for UHC is not limited to bush's plan. They want to externalize the costs. I can't blame them

[Lasher]

17. That's interesting, I had not heard that.

Will you please furnish a link to more information on the subject so I can book up?

[doggyboy]

18. No links

but I remember reading a small number of articles about how various corporations are warming up to the idea.

[doggyboy]

19. Here's something that hints at it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100878.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01Healthcare.t.html?ex=1180497600&en=8e1c3d49bc3494c9&ei=5070

[Lasher]

21. Big business supports individual mandate, not single payer.

Individual mandate schemes are being employed to highjack the cause for single payer universal healthcare. Junior's healthcare scam is a form of individual mandate.

I believe individual mandate makes things worse, not better. In all versions of individual mandate, most people have little to gain and a lot to lose. Big business wants to end employer-provided healthcare and leave individuals with little but the privilege of buying bare bones insurance policies on their own.

Here is an informative thread on the subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=210673#210953

[doggyboy]

24. Thanks for that

Very informative and salin is a treasure.

I don't like individual mandates either, and I have no doubt business would prefer that to SP-UHC. It's a real danger so I'm not going to be Pollyanish about it and say "No problem". However, I think having businesses talk about the economic dangers of an employment-based health insurance system does help to move us from "We can't afford to cover everyone" to "We can't afford to NOT cover everyone"

[Lasher]

25. I agree doggyboy, we must cover everyone.

But as long as we allow insurance companies to continue imposing their enormous additional costs, I don't see how we can afford anything that resembles my vision of universal healthcare. This morning I saw an article about Obama's 'new' plan for 'universal healthcare'. I was disappointed after I read the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_el_pr/obama_health_7;_ylt=AlM8nSW6EykvOSAsnJE6d4UE1vAI

I see you just signed up here at DU not long ago. I hope you stick around. People around here are always real nice - just as long as you agree with them 100%. :hi:

Edit: Discussion about Obama's plan going on here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2861817#2861834

[Adelante]

7. I don't think you are missing much

The elements in the various plans are nothing new - they are points held by Democrats in some configuration or other, and the candidates compile them according to what they think best. However, no one of those plans will emerge whole once Congress has to do its give and take routine. Whatever Democrat is president will have influence, but will have to work the give and take, as well. Democratic Congress and Democratic President makes it all better, but nothing guarantees any of the candidates' blueprints. That said, the single differentiating point is whether or not we can elect a candidate who will promise to fight for single-payer. It's not guaranteed to prevail in the event, but there's got to be a national discussion on it, not just on health care reform, but on single-payer. That won't happen unless whoever is the president is willing to batter Congress on it, but a candidate's health care platform is no guarantee of even that.

[Cameron27]

9. I agree n/t

[Auntie Bush]

15. I just wrote Clark a letter...thanks to your signiture line.

You think he will take my advice? I said, "Pretty please!" lol

[BeyondGeography]

8. From a policy standpoint, I think you are correct

the difference will come down to which of our candidates is best able to govern and persuade enough members from the other party that destructive political fights aren't in their short-term interest anymore, especially on a dogfight issue like health care.

[ToeBot]

11. I can't see anything significant making it through the Senate.

The Republicans would use every procedural trick available to derail the effort. Even if the Dem's had a 60+ majority, there would be enough turncoats to stifle any meaningful health care reform. If anything it would demonstrate just who is beholding to whom (not that that would make any difference, they'd still be reelected).

[itcfish]

22. OMG

If you ever think we will get any kind of National Healthcare in the US you are very wrong. The Insurance industry will never allow such a thing to happen. The only way is ever they outlaw lobbys, and only have public funding for campaigns. Period.

[DemBones DemBones]

23. Yes, you're missing a lot here. Sen. Clinton has said

that there can be no health care plan without the insurance industry. I fear that the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry will control all the candidates except Kucinich.

Kucinich has a simple plan: give every American Medicare coverage. The Medicare system is already in place, it's very efficient (98% of the funds go to pay patients' bills), and the premiums are much lower than private insurance premiums.

The insurance industry is running scared but many people would keep a private insurance policy. As we all know, if you only have one policy, or only have Medicare, you have to pay a part of your medical bills, usually 80%, but 50% for mental health care.

And Medicare's prescription drug program is very confusing and, according to our pharmacist, not worth it. (You have to pay to participate in the Medicare prescription drug program.) Private insurance pays better for drugs, which is another reason many might keep a private policy, too. The insurance companies might have to lower their premiums, though.