Single payer advocates don't want insurance companies at the table at all.

[madfloridian]

This worries me because it is not realistic to simply cut out the companies that are so powerful right now. It's a good idea that is not about to happen.

It is good to push on both the government option in addition to private options and for only a government option. Good to push on both but not say one way is the only way.

Some of the political leaders involved in the single payer push are starting to shut down other voices who realize that the insurance companies are not going away.

From the Left: The Public Plan Does Not Equal Single-Payer Insurance

The title of the article is correct...they are not equal. One wants to shut out completely the insurance companies. A worthy goal, but look who is in charge of the health care. Max Baucus has received millions from them. No one is stopping him from being boss of the subject.

During the national conference call organized by MoveOn.org, Governor Howard Dean was asked whether or not he supports H.R. 676, the United States National Health Care Act (known amongst supporters as the single-payer bill).

His response was quite interesting, and perhaps illustrates where he hopes the public plan option will eventually lead. He said that the public plan would essentially be a single-payer healthcare option, as the government would provide low-cost insurance much in the same way that it does for Medicare recipients.

Dean may hope that the public insurance plan will prove quite popular, thus allowing for its incremental expansion to an all-encompassing single-payer program later on. Still, single-payer advocates are not convinced.

Yes, it is Dean's view that the only way to get to single payer universal health care run by the government is through the public plan now in addition to private insurance.

Some single payer advocates do not want insurance companies involved at all. Neither do I, but that is not a realistic enough view IMO right now.

Still, single-payer advocates are not convinced.

They believe that private insurers should not be included in the insurance exchange; they (correctly) believe that these providers squander precious dollars on unnecessary overhead.

Single-payer proponents would rather see private insurers cut from the picture entirely.

They are particularly opposed to coverage mandates and subsidies that facilitate, encourage and require the purchase of private insurance.

I don't know how they plan to cut out insurance companies.

Meanwhile back in DC Max Baucus is still holding closed door sessions.

He is holding them because he can and because there is no one telling him no.

Rarely Used Closed Doors Slammed Again in U.S. Senate Health Care Reform

WASHINGTON, May 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- For the second time in two weeks, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee today invoked rules -- allowing a closed door committee session barring the public, media and with no Congressional Record -- reserved for unusual circumstances, like national security issues and trade secrets.

No public, no media, no record.

Howard Dean has 3 meetings coming up in the next weeks... in Denver, Des Moines, and Portland

His view is this:

"If we can't deliver a real choice to the American people and real reform, I think we lose seats in the midterm election. I think we're going to have a hard time getting the president re-elected," Mr. Dean said on a call with MoveOn.org and Democracy for America members, trying to rally support for public health care. "As long as he sticks with us, and we stick with him, I think we're ultimately going to win this."

"We have a Democratic president, Democratic Senate, Democratic House. There's no reason to trade it away," Mr. Dean said.

In the latest emails from David Plouffe, there is no mention of a public option...one of the guiding principles of Obama's campaign.

There is surely no mention of single payer. We should not divide ourselves while we strive for what we can get.

Baucus and his cohorts have the power right now, and no one is telling him to be inclusive. That's a real shame.

[JVS]

1. Chickens don't want foxes in the hen-house? What a shocker!

[madfloridian]

2. The idea is good. No point in being defensive toward me

because I post about the reality.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

35. the reality of how corrupt our congress is

that they are controlled by insurance companies.

[DaLittle Kitty]

66. John Russell Has Advocated The "Choice" Means of Implementation For Some Time Now!

As a candidate for congress and a Health Care Professional (MS/ARNP, Acute Care, MBA Health Systems Management, John recognizes the tremendous resources/interests aligned against ANY move toward a public plan. Adding the public option provides people a choice and how can the freedom loving Republicans fight giving people a choice?

As you can see the opposition to giving a choice gets allll tongue tied trying to fight it ... so they just tryyyy to ignore it and hope that it just goes away.

Read John Russell's Health Care Platform for 2008 where he provides a rationale and a road map for successful implementation. John Russell will be at Senator Nelson's office in Tampa on Thursday and will be exposing the hypocrisy of the politicians who better represent BIG BUSINESS THAN THEY DO US!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.johnrussellforcongress.com/page.asp?PageId=35

[L0oniX]

3. Yea ...let's all get along with the sociopaths. Death = Profit ....pffft

[rocktivity]

4. The problem with our health care system IS the profit motive--and kickbacks in the form

of campaign contributions.

As long as it possible to make money by NOT delivering care, that's what will continue to happen. As for shutting down the insurance companies, just steer their profits in the the public coffers. Those who aren't interested can seek work elsewhere.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[dotymed]

59. WE CAN'T HAVE A REAL DISCUSSION

On Universal Health Care, while giving "for profit"
insurers a voice. We have seen what happens,every time we let
a corporation with a financial stake,"help" solve a
problem. It becomes totally Orwellian and what is meant to
help people ends up benefiting corporations. Screw them. They
have screwed Americans for too long. It is time that they
LISTENED, instead of offering "for profit"
solutions.Every since (REAGAN) we have let profits come before
people,this world has gone to hell. Health Care is a RIGHT and
as such, it should be written into the BILL OF RIGHTS. We
have, for too long, let these parasites deny human beings in
this country, health care. Hundreds of Americans DIE everyday
because they can not afford, what in most other countries is
already recognized as a right, not something to be purchased.
If these politicians are really our representatives they know
this. They also know that there is no place at the
"table" for profiteering as usual. These insurance
companies also provide car, life and other types of for profit
insurance. We can no longer allow them to control our life and
death on this earth.
Obama threw the auto companies under the bus. He let many
thousands become unemployed by his refusal to treat the auto
companies nearly as well as the financial industry. The
financial industry and the insurers are very wealthy. The auto
companies employ mainly blue-collar workers who are not nearly
financially "worth" as much as the financiers. The
monetary concessions in the auto industry came directly from
the WORKERS salary. The financiers were given trillions and
allowed to give billions of dollars in "bonuses" to
proven failed execs. This is obviously a corporate controlled
political party. We (Democrats) have become what the
Republican party used to be.
If the "for profit" insurers are allowed to
influence our health care any longer, then we need to start a
"Progressive" party. The Republicans are being well
represented by the Democratic party and the
"Conservatives" are politically dead.
If there is to be no HR676, we need to get started on our
"Progressive" party immediately. Kucinich and
Saunders, would be great presidential running mates. We just
have to work on "grass roots" fund raising, until we
can elect a Progressive and "fix" our financially
based "electoral system."  

[DaLittle Kitty]

83. Accurate Point WITHOUT QUESTION!

:)

[TankLV]

5. NOW you've finally got it! GET RID OF THE "INSURANCE COMPANIES" IN HEALTH CARE!!!

ONLY then can we BEGIN to "talk"...

[madfloridian]

7. What is your plan to get rid of them?

?

[anigbrowl]

29. oh yeah, I really want to talk with you...

[dionysus]

70. !

:spray:

[Skink]

6. Make the Government option available to all.

Mandate that taxes fund it. If individuals want they can get supplement insurance which I'm sure won't come at a premium like it does now.

[madrchsod]

8. they can sell short and long term disability insurance and

they can sell supplemental insurance to off set anything the government does`t cover. the core of our health care must be a universal based program.

[area51]

21. Exactly.

This is a non-issue. Insurance cos. can stay in business under single-payer if they are tightly regulated, and they'll be selling insurance plans for things not covered, like private rooms, face-lifts, tummy tucks, etc.

[Stevepol]

9. Believe me if single-payer gets a seat at the table so IT CAN GET HEARD!

nobody is going to squawk about whoever else is there. The reason big pharma and big insurance won't let single-payer sit at the table, is that they're afraid its logic and arguments are so strong that it will eventually win the day.

[madfloridian]

10. Maybe they should stop saying that insurance companies not allowed.

Then they might get a seat at the table.

[eridani]

54. Bullshit. The fuckers never have wanted members of the public to have any say

Why should they? They were well and thoroughly despised before single payer even got on the radar.

[Enthusiast]

53. +1, Stevepol

They don't want to see the face of a single payer advocate because they know maintaining the status quo is not a good argument.

[bemildred]

11. Insurance companies don't want single-payer advocates at the table either.

That ought to be obvious.

[madfloridian]

12. Trouble is they are in charge because they control our bosses.

:shrug:

I like the idea of single payer, but I don't know how to get rid of insurance companies.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

36. they don't control all congress - 28 US Senators want single payer on th etable

here they are:

Kennedy and Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Roland W. Burris (D-Ill.), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.).

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=640E497C-18FE-70B2-A837AA723F0D3D02

[blindpig]

76. So lets get it all out in the open.

As the public overwhelmingly wants single payer and their elected representatives refuse to represent their wishes then lets clear the air.
Demand what is a right in all comparable societies and show our reps for what they are, servants of the people or self-aggrandizing whores. Either way something good will be accomplished.

[Canuckistanian]

13. We've had a lot of discussion about this in Canada

Many people wonder why for-profit health care entities aren't allowed more access.

The best argument for EXCLUDING them is that by their very aggressive presence, a Two-Tier system will be created. And the problem with a Two-Tier system is that the private sector will move in and attract the best and the brightest in the medical community, depriving the public system of their talents and ideas.

Now, if these private clinics were limited to services that are under-resourced, such as hip-replacement, neuro-surgery or cardiac surgery, fine. The waiting lists could be shortened considerably.

But using private, for-profit clinics for basic health care will, some say, cause a definite degradation to the public system.

Another option is to pay the private providers to reduce the waiting lists. But this raises everyone's costs because it's still paid for by taxes. And again, it's less resources to the public system.

I'd say allow private providers, but put them on a VERY short leash. And LIMIT the percentage of publically paid private providers.

[Captain Hilts]

14. They're both at the table or they're both out. Can't have one without the other. And if Ins. cos

are excluded they'll fight all the harder, a la the '90s.

[madfloridian]

15. Obviously not a popular position here.

DUers want it all or nothing.

I happen to think that we have no way of keeping insurance companies out of the picture.

So I guess we will end up with nothing if we refuse to compromise.

[Captain Hilts]

16. Ins. companies have to be there for a couple of reasons.

If we cut them out completely, they'll fight all the harder.

They have some information on health and how people use health services.

They're the other end of the spectrum opposite the single-payer advocates.

[madfloridian]

23. I think you may be right about that fact...

that they will fight harder if we urge excluding them which ain't gonna happen anyway.

:hi:

[dotymed]

60. MadFloridian:

Max Baucus has refused Single Payer advocates a voice at the
table. Not the Insurers. They are very well represented. What
table are we not allowing them at? Personally, I believe their
is no room for profit when it comes to saving lives and
prevention. Maybe there is for elective procedures. Profit on
peoples lives is obscene. But I do know that Single Payer
Advocates have been refused input. Where have insurers been
denied their voice? They own a piece of most of our
politicians, I can not imagine their not being heard, or their
willingness to put people before profit.

[madfloridian]

65. I am saying we are not being given a choice. Baucus is doing it for us.

Yes, he is denying a seat to single payer advocates. That is what I am griping about. But he is getting away with it...and no one higher than him is telling him to be inclusive.

That's rather my point.

How can so many get angry with those of us who are for government run public option as a choice...when it is pretty obvious the insurance companies have the power.

That is my point.

[Greyhound]

17. More obfuscation and distraction.

HR 676 does not eliminate or restrict private health insurance. This simple fact is what this misinformation campaign is all about. It is what they don't want people to know. It is not "government run health care", and does not create a new bureaucracy that dictates what care people will get.

Here's the big secret they are hiding; It merely makes medicare an option for every citizen.

Of course, the problem with that is, just as was flatly stated last week, the insurance companies and HMOs cannot compete with that and they will die as a result.

For fuck's sake people, quite biting on the shiny bauble with the hook in it.

[madfloridian]

18. Let's not play word games.

That is what the public option is...opening up Medicare. But it does not exclude the insurance companies as many single payer advocates want.

There will still be options to use them.

[Greyhound]

19. I'm not and I'm completely confused as to what you're saying.

What single payer advocates are you speaking of?

Still, this is worth another :kick:

[madfloridian]

20. It's confusing, and you and I might be saying the same thing.

I am speaking of the ones here and at other blogs who are critical of Dean's advocacy for the public option instead of single payer.

It's fine to support either or both, but not okay to say there is only one way. We are not powerful enough to toss the insurance companies out on their ears. We will be lucky to get the public option.

[no_hypocrisy]

22. I don't suppose it would be feasible to nationalize the private insurers, huh?

[roamer65]

25. One large insurer is already nationalized...AIG.

Might as well get the rest while we're at it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

33. unfortunately, AIG is still about making profit and denying claims

Insurance is not beneficial to patients or doctors.

[roamer65]

24. Extortion (aka insurance)companies should be cut out completely.

In fact, the entire insurance industry should be nationalized.

[madfloridian]

26. Who will do it and how?

It's easy to say it needs to be done, but how?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

34. well, in 30+ other countries, the government does it - without insurance companies

just like we do Medicare here in US.

Much more efficient without that greedy CEO trying to add millions to his bonus.

[madfloridian]

41. I agree with you. But we gave them the power here...how do we keep them out?

I agree with you, I just don't see a way to do it.

[Enrique]

27. single payer advocates have no power

so it doesn't make sense to talk about them shutting anyone out of anything.

[madfloridian]

28. We all have the power to divide.

I am fearful of that happening. I think our goal should be a Medicare type system for all....but I don't think it can be done right now. I think we will be lucky to get a Medicare option which is open to everyone to choose.

At least for now. For now Baucus and his ilk, the Conservadems, have the power.

[EnoughOfThis]

30. Nice Commentary

I can appreciate that you don't want things clouded by insurance companies, but I agree with you that they need to be involved. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. Are our ideas strong????!! Or NO????!!! Do we want to cancel out the other side and keep them out of the debate??!! That is ridiculous. Forcing single-payer, without discussion, may not let us steamroll us to victory without comment, but it might give us a chance to get full public support. I am not supporting the end of our democratic system and I hope that others are not, as well......please.

[quidam56]

31. In Tennessee and Virginia, this is called quality

health care. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62 It even took the health care system three years to disparage and prove their advertising is false and misleading...

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

32. Yes, we need insurance companies to make a profit and deny services, yes, we really do

right.

[madfloridian]

40. I will ask again...how do you keep them out?

I have asked that several times in this thread, but there is no answer.

[MasonJar]

37. Madfloridian, watch Bill Moyers program of May 22 and you will understand.

Please go to PBS and watch it; it is a revelation, especially the second half hour.

[emsimon33]

61. That's what turned me into a one note player: Private insurance OUT!

[emsimon33]

62. Here's the Moyers' URL

Please watch Bill Moyers Journal from May 22 on health care reform:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch.html

"BILL MOYERS: There aren't any details. But he seems to be advocating a public option that would compete with the private insurance-driven sector, as a way of lowering the cost. What do you think about it? Is that- am I reading his plan correctly?

"DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Well, most of the cost savings he's talking about are really illusory, I think. And my research group has done most of the research work on administrative costs in health care. And the administrative costs he's talking about saving are a tiny fraction of the potential savings under single-payer. 'Cause hospitals have to keep their bureaucracy, if you're dealing with hundreds of different plans. And doctors have to keep the bureaucracy in our office. You don't actually get the streamlining that you get from having one payer that has one set of rules and can pay lump sum budgets to hospitals. But more than that, we're worried that the public plan actually becomes a dumping ground for the unprofitable patients. As it's happening in Medicare.

"BILL MOYERS: What do you mean? How would that happen?

"DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Well, the private insurers have all kinds of tricks to avoid sick patients, who are the expensive patients. So, you put your signup office on the second floor of a walkup building. And people who can't navigate stairs are the expensive people."

or read the transcript:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/transcript4....

[Stinky The Clown]

38. I would be VERY happy if insurance companies were not at the table.

[madfloridian]

39. I agree.

I just don't think we can divide into two camps on this.

I see signs of that happening.

I see it in this thread.

I have fought insurance companies of all kinds recently, health, property, life, etc. I despise them.

I just don't know how to keep them out.

[Necon-Be-Gone]

42. Medical Insurers & For-profit providers

don't need any advocacy as they own Congress and the President.

[madfloridian]

43. I am not advocating for them. I am saying they own congress.

They truly do, and the ones they own the most are in charge of getting health care through.

[Mind_your_head]

44. Right On! I didn't read the OP or the responses (YET), but you got it.....

I don't want to see the insurance companies at the table (or the trough, if you're a greedy pig ~ which is common is this day & age)at all!

That's true!

:thumbsup:

[Lasher]

45. So we single payer advocates should just go along without a fight?

We shouldn't oppose insurance companies because they are powerful? And we should just shut up and settle for a public option because otherwise we are being divisive?

The public option is a poison apple. I'm not biting.

[madfloridian]

68. I don't think you understood what I wrote. You have a right to demand only one way.

And you are using that right.

I am just hoping we don't divide ourselves on this.

I think we are going to have to fight to even keep Medicare for our seniors. I think they will do away with it if they can.

I don't know how else to word my thoughts. I tried.

:shrug:

[Lasher]

82. You're right, we'll have to fight just to keep Medicare for seniors.

I am filled with dread when I hear Obama talk about 'entitlement reform'.

The public option bears close watching. I believe we will get one but it will be a Trojan horse. And when all is said and done I predict we shall have collectively been better off without it and the rest of the health care legislation being drawn up right now. Hope I'm wrong.

[truthrocks]

46. The woman pulling the healthcare puppet strings:

check it out . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090524/ap_on_go_ot/us_health_overhaul_top_lobbyist_4

[depakid]

47. Crikey- she sure looks the part

Togther with Baucus:



Couple of insurance company owned creeps if I ever saw them....

[emsimon33]

63. Check out her salary! I love to know where my premium money goes!

"Ignagni's total compensation, according to AHIP's most recent filing from 2007, was $1.58 million, which includes $700,000 in base salary, $370,000 in deferred compensation and a bonus."

[joshcryer]

48. They should be cut from the picture entirely, I don't see the issue.

What is the issue? Oh it's not "political reality"? Neither was voting rights. Neither was segregation. Neither "is" gay rights.

Guess what? Political realities change.

But only if you have the balls to change them rather than complaining.

[bluestateguy]

49. I'd allow them a seat at the table

to help facilitate an orderly disbandment of the private insurance industry and a smooth transition into a new line of employment for people who work for the insurance industry. That's it though.

[Mythsaje]

50. They can sell car insurance... LOL n/t

[truthrocks]

67. Agree! There are other options besides "all or nothing" . . .

... like a step by step reform with a rational plan. The greed and corruption of big pharma and the insurance industry is like a long-festering boil ... needs to drain from the inside out in order to heal ... and it may take a while ...

[Fumesucker]

51. ""I can envision a day when you will have to show proof of insurance at the job interview""

-Hilary Clinton

We all know the system we are almost certain to end up with, legally mandated private insurance.

So what's the point of even having this discussion?

[Zodiak]

57. And apparently it will be the fault of single payer advocates for being divisive

Even though it is they who have been shut out of the negotiations, not the other way around.

This OP is some serious twisted logic. Blaming the powerless for doing EXACTLY what the other side is doing because of a couple of blog entries.

The fact remains, single-payer was shut out of the process, and the public plan that Dean so passionately advocates for is on the chopping block to be negotiated away, now. That is NOT the fault of single-payer advocates...it is the fault of bought-and-paid-for Democrats who framed the debate this way against the wishes of the people. They know that this framework will give the private insurers all of the power, and they blatantly set it up that way.

The private insurance industry has contributed immensely to our failed economy and has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans by bean-counting. They do not DESERVE a place at the table, but instead are given all of the power. And that is the fault of single-payer advocates?

[madfloridian]

72. Not a fair analysis of what I said.

I hate to be seeing us divided on it when we are going to have to fight to get anything at all.

Several people recently have made an enemy of those of us who think we should fight for the public option. I see no way that helps any of us.

So either you did not read my post thoughtfully, or you don't want to see my POV. I am advocating for both.

[Zodiak]

73. You should fight for the public option

But you are not going to get it. Know why? Because they took single payer of the table, and that puts the public option on the chopping block. You lost your cover from the left, and now what you advocate is the "nutty, socialistic, communistic, anti-american piece of liberal crap" that the "left" doesn't really want anyways.

And since the public option people thought it was perfectly okay for single payer to be taken off of the table because "it is not realistic", you have no new allies helping you get what you wanted....instead you have bitter people whom you shut out of the process.

The divisive role was played by the Democrats who did not allow single payer to even be entertained. What you observe around you is the NATURAL REACTION to being shut out of the process. Anger.

The Democrats knew this would be the outcome, and they divided us nicely.

And you aren't going to get a public option worth the paper it is written on.

So don't come here talking about how single payer advocates are being divisive (which is the SECOND TIME you have done this) under the guise of being a "uniter". If you want to discourage division, you might want to stop it with the "single payer people are ruining healthcare reform" threads. Healthcare reform was ruined before it even got off of the ground, and it is the DEMOCRATS that have done this.

Enough with blaming those shut out of the system.

[madfloridian]

74. I never said any of those things. You just made my point.

You really did.

You put a whole lot of words in my mouth.

You have turned me into your enemy.

[Fumesucker]

77. When entering into negotiations in business

You don't start with the very minimum you want, you start out asking for the sun, moon and stars and then grudgingly give ground.

It works the same way in politics, which is why the Overton Window has been steadily pushed to the right over the last thirty plus years. The Republicans start out so far to the right they are about to fall off the edge of the world and the Dems start with a "centrist" position, inevitably the negotiations move to the right and the eventual agreement is far to the right.

It's really just basic negotiating tactics known to anyone who has ever been to a flea market.

[Zodiak]

78. Oh noes....I'm MF's "enemy" now!!!

Titling your thread to highlight how closed minded single payer advocates are wasn't your intention at all, right? Nor was it the last time (last week) you started a thread with exactly the same premise. We get it...us leftie nutbaggers are getting in the way of Howard Dean's vision for a half-assed, two-tiered system.

And now, with a little criticism (and that is exactly how I feel the tone of your OPs lately have been), you have declared me your enemy?

Who is being divisive here? Advocate your goddamned point and quit it with the "I'm your enemy", "You hurt my feelings" bullshit. That "woe is me" crap earns you no points, and frankly pisses me off when you spent your time framing your potential allies as closed-minded jerks. How quickly you turn on someone for a little criticism...it's not about YOU, you know.

You want your half-assed public option made into law and see potential allies to the left of you...allies that have been shut out of the process by your political allies, and your approach is to criticize them and imply they are closed-minded after THEY are not allowed speak? They are angry...get it? And they were made that way on purpose by elected Democrats.

And here you come to tell them that they are unrealistic and closed-minded. That's blaming the victim.

You should direct your criticism towards the assholes that shut out your best allies from the system and is now negotiating away your position, too. But then again, that is deserved because you never lead with your weakest position.....never. If you bought Dean's argument that the public option is what we should push for first, then you are reaping those benefits now. Leading with your weakest position is a SURE WAY for the other side to win.

[JDPriestly]

81. What job interview? We need jobs first, and one of the impediments

to job creation and job maintenance is the fact that we all pay huge ransoms to the insurance companies so that we can see our doctors.

I am reminded of stories that I have heard about the salt taxes in Europe in the Middle Ages. Salt is a necessity. Those who controlled various areas in Europe would not allow the salt merchants to pass through their towns unless they paid a tax for their passage through the area. That's what insurance companies do. They don't sell anything of any value. They just demand a fee to take your money and pass it on to your doctor. Their service could better be offered in a number of ways.

Doctors could simply organize their own insurance companies, hire a few secretaries and buy a computer to handle the payments and charge each person a fee that is the average of the costs of the services they provide their patients. Who needs the CEOs and the huge bureaucracies?

The interesting thing here is that whether you are for single payer or the universal government plan option, you are acknowledging that private industry, the so-called market economy fails us when it comes to health care. The health insurance companies have lost touch with our needs and our ability to pay. Their greed is destroying their market.

I must say that doctors who agree to work for single payer or a government option should receive forgiveness for some of their loan debt if they are asked to take lower remuneration for their services.

[eridani]

52. They can have a seat at the table to discuss providing bells and whistles

--that single payer or a public option do not provide. All countries with universal health care have private insurers--they are flat out forbidden to dominate the system, though.

BTW, what we can get demands a whole lot on WHAT THE FUCK WE ASK FOR!! Stop demanding single payer, and any resulting public option will be a total disaster--nothing but an underfunded garbage pit for the poor and the sick.

If we can't get rid of the insurance parasites, we'd do well to demonize their murder by spreadsheet to the fullest extent possible. That may reduce their influence.

[OETKB]

55. Transition Money

HR 676 provides 20 billion dollars for transition costs for the current health insurance companies. This is meant to facilitate transferring people to other positions who would be displaced by a Single Payer Plan. Of course it would not be available to 7 figure former CEOs or their Boards.

[Profprileasn]

56. Good comparison

for Gov't run health care would be that supplied for vets. I know that I would want other choices.

[RufusTFirefly]

58. "a complete fantasy"

John Edwards said it best:

"Some people argue that we’re going to sit at a table with these people and they’re going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen."

Quoted in Krugman from 2007. Paul wrote this. Pretty prophetic, I'd say.

O.K., more seriously, it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.

As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? “I’ll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying,” he says. I’m sure the lobbyists are terrified.

As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.

Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.

[bertman]

64. Sure, there are a lot of Single-Payer advocates who would like to see NO insurance company

reps at the table, but that's about as likely to happen as, well, having more than ONE Single-Payer advocate at the table--or maybe even ONE. Since the Single-Payer advocates have so little clout or say in this, I think this is really a non-issue.

I'm a Single-Payer advocate, but my reality-based position is that the Public Option is what we should be fighting for at this point. Let's get the Public Option in place, let it work for a few years, then with an even larger percentage of Americans behind it, we might be able to win a Single-Payer system.

Two tangential comments: First, there is no way in hell that Congress or the President is going to install a Single-Payer plan and remove Insurance companies from the picture. NO WAY IN HELL. Here's the second largest reason (behind the millions of dollars that the insurance industry has bribed our politicians with): where will we employ the hundreds of thousands of clerical and administrative workers who currently keep the insurance system up and running? In this economy we're going to "phase out" hundreds of thousands of jobs? Not gonna happen. So, for all of you DU'ers who are screaming about all the unemployed workers in America yet you want insurance companies out of the picture post haste, please consider that many Americans will be royally screwed unless there is a phased implementation of the Public Option a la Dr. Dean's idea.

I am regularly getting invites from our President to join him on June 6th in fighting for our new health care plan. My question is What Plan Are We Fighting For? Can anyone enlighten me as to what the President's plan is? So far, I haven't seen a plan--just some incoherent mumblings about massive savings coming from the largesse of the health insurance industry. To me that's a recipe for disaster, not a plan.

[wolfgangmo]

69. Single payer will never happen in America. Know why?

Because no one hates Americans like other American's. No one. More people die of rejected medical coverage that were killed on 9-11. More people lose everything and file for bankruptcy because of medical bills in America and the typical response is "yawn -who cares." I predict that with the closed door meeting and the pushing off of the talks and the divide and conquer techniques that nothing will happen. Nothing. We just don't care that much.

This country loathes its' citizens. It is the only explanation.

Will Rogers once said you get the government you deserve. I guess we have this coming then.

We certainly did when we re-elected Bush. Heck, my father, who is from Canada and so right wing he thinks that the best way to handle illegal immigration is a torpedo, called me after the 2004 election and asked me if all Yanks were crazy. We must be.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. The only reason insurance companies should be allowed at the table

is to talk about how they are going to phase themselves out of business and how some of their employees will be absorbed into administering the new government plan.

[chaska]

75. "...while we strive for what we can get." Better nothing than what they're planning.

No plan is better than a bad plan, that will be impossible to change for probably decades.

[mwooldri]

79. Single payer AND insurance can work together.

Here's how.

The government just essentially self-insures the whole country. People pay their premiums through a progressive National Insurance Contribution mechanism to the government. The current insurance companies administer the plans, but have to accept anyone who applies under its network. The government decides a master plan of what's covered and what's not covered. If the insurance companies (oops, sorry "Plan Administrators") want to add on extra benefits to make their choice stand out, then that might entice people to choose them over someone else.

It's not perfect because medical facilities would still need to contract with the "insurance companies" and agree reimbursement rates. That aspect of the competition would still be there. But to the end consumer it would give everyone health care coverage that they could all afford and the government can then have control over the price of healthcare by controlling what it reimburses the "insurance companies".

[DesertFlower]

80. i agree with howard dean.

have single payer as an option and let the people decide. i've been eligible for medicare for more than 2 years, but i've decided to stay with my husband's insurance. it's less expensive and covers more.

[and-justice-for-all]

84. "don't want insurance companies at the table at all. " I second that! nt