Can We All Agree That The Concept Of Getting Universal Healthcare Is Dead

[THUNDER HANDS]

for at least the next four years, which essentially means for good. Because if a universal healthcare program was going to be implemented, it was going to happen within the first 100 days of Obama's administration, but with the nearly $2 Trillion we're handing out in bailouts, I can't imagine a way we could possibly pay for it, let alone put it realistically on the table and sell it.

Am I wrong in thinking that? Do you still think there's a chance that if Obama wins, that he could push through some sort of a universal healthcare program in our current financial crisis?

[Uzybone]

1. next 4 years yes...for good, no

Like civil rights, gay rights, environmentalism etc. it is inevitable.

[1corona4u]

2. Yes, I think he will manage it.

I don't think it's something that he will just give up on, or put it on the back burner.

[Schema Thing]

3. It shouldn't be dead because we can get MUCH more for much less

than we are paying now.

[SoonerPride]

4. If we don't get 60 in the Senate, it is dead.

We must have the numbers to get the legislation we need.

[calmblueocean]

5. I think you'll see regulation of the health insurance industry

...but I don't think you'll see Obama offering the government-backed health insurance option just yet.

[LeftishBrit]

6. It depends on the will for it. Europaean countries have established and maintained healthcare during

hard times.

The NHS was established in Britain during a time of postwar austerity, food rationing, etc.

[Demeter]

7. I Wouldn't Bet on It

There is no way we will make any kind of economic recovery without Universal, single-payer healthcare in this country. This is obvious already, and even Congress will see the truth after January.

[DJ13]

8. Were already broke, whats more going to hurt?

To be honest, if were to rebuild our manufacturing base we need to implement universal healthcare to be somewhat competitive with the rest of the world on cost of doing business, since their industries dont pay for private health benefits.

[BlueIdaho]

9. Sorry I have to disagree...

We currently spend much more than any other nation on this planet on health care - we just aren't getting very much for our money. Its possible to have quality universal health care and reduce our spending all at the same time! I think most americans would jump at the chance to have the same health care our elected officials enjoy.

[FreeState]

10. Nope. Its not dead

most studies show it would be cheaper to implement it than continue on with our current system. It saves the state money.

[Bubbha Jo]

11. I would call it on hold versus dead. It's still achievable. n/t

[terrya]

12. Yes, it will be dead, I'm afraid.

It makes me cry to think about it. But realistically, of course it is. He's going to have to deal with the financial crisis, plus he'll be pressured into trying to do something with the massive deficits he'll be inheriting.

[IndianaJones]

13. I have no problem getting healthcare. nt.

[phantom power]

14. Two things...

1. The public pressure to have it will increase.

2.

It’s been bothering me that in both debates we’ve seen so far, it was just assumed that the government is going to have to tighten its belt because of the recession. You don’t need a degree in economics to see why that’s a bad assumption. You just need to have a very basic understanding of history to know what Keynesian economics are, and that one of the principles is that the government should increase spending in a recession to stimulate the economy. The way that everyone is carrying on as if they don’t know this is baffling.

The whole situation is a very revealing glimpse into how politics have gotten so stupid. Everything is tailored to this concept of the Average Voter, who is assumed to be very shallow and very stupid. That’s why so much election coverage is so shallow and stupid.

(...)

It’s this assumption that I think accounts for why no one seems to remember the 101 idea that you increase spending during a recession. The assumption is that the average voter can’t grasp an economic concept that is different from those you use when managing your own finances, and of course, when there’s a downturn in the economy, ordinary people tighten their belts. And sure, maybe your average voter would just assume that the same is true of the government. But you know, they can be educated on the difference. Ezra does a bang-up job of explaining this concept in a short amount of time and on a level pretty much anyone can understand:

When consumers and businesses fall on hard times, they cut spending. Which cuts demand. Which cuts economic activity. Which deepens your recession. All that is a Bad Thing. So it’s useful indeed that we have an institution able to amp up deficit spending in order to increase demand.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/lowering_expectations/

[jacksonian]

18. bingo !!!!

I was shouting this at the TV during the VP debates.

YOU DO NOT SLASH SPENDING DURING A RECESSION.

[jberryhill]

22. Yup... where did we get the Blue Ridge Parkway, Hoover Dam, and a lot of the National Park System

The big lie is "WWII pulled us out of the depression".

No.

FDR pulled us out of the depression, and the Republican agenda has been since then to tear down everything he ever did.

[Fovea]

15. I concede no such thing.

The economy is going to do the concrete swandive. By next spring Keynesian economics will be the only economics we will have.
Our military will start coming home from all sorts of places next year, because we can't afford to have them in bases all around the world.

Universal healthcare will be a cornerstone of the new deal that will be required to keep the gated communities intact.

[Secret_Society]

16. Never

no matter what Obama's commercials say.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. baby steps.

[patrice]

19. nope

[kennetha]

20. The bailout will make it impossible

plus Obama's plan isn't really universal.

The only rational option is single-payer. But our political system isn't all that good at choosing the most rational option. Too much power in the hands of those who don't want it to block it, even though the great majority would benefit.

[jberryhill]

21. Absolutely not - now more than ever

Our horrendously inefficient system for delivering health care is the biggest drag on our economy bar none.

Sick people don't work.

Relative to the rest of the world our screwed up health care "system" is one of our biggest competitive disadvantages.

If we head into a deep recession / depression, it is all the more reason why we are going to have to get rid of the outrageously expensive bureaucratic health insurance system which limits choice and doesn't actually deliver health.

[rug]

23. Can we all agree that thousands will die without it?

[kenny blankenship]

24. Or look at it this way: insurance companies are being weakened (AIG was an insurance co)

and single payer universal healthcare saves money as demonstrated by all the advanced countries that have it.
Don't let the corporatists win the framing war.

Britain implemented their NHS while still digging themselves out of the ashes of WWII.
It can be done, in fact you could argue now that it MUST be done.

[msallied]

25. It'll happen. At least Obama's plan will, which is sort of a half and half deal.

I actually like Obama's plan, as someone who is never too thrilled with the idea of a government mandate. But it opens the door to get more people covered.

[notaboutus]

26. We will get health care

They steal every idea Obama comes up with. Then say he stole theirs. Obama and his campaign have said since the primary he has everything paid for. The counter argument is "how, tell us, show us". We all know there is wasteful spending in government. It's just we don't know how much. Obama will never let his right hand know what the left is doing but he has given hints already of where he will cut spending to fund his agenda.

[LWolf]

27. No.

Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care is still at the top of my list of priorities.

As is repealing the bailout.