John Kerry - Health Care for All Americans

[Mass]

He is not proposing a bill by itself, but a bill that would force the Congress to protect all Americans by 2011 or lose their own health insurance. Sign the petition (as well as the one from Conyers for Single Payer Insurance http://johnconyers.com/HR676 )

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/healthcare/?sc=hp

Health Care for All Americans

On the 5th anniversary of Cover the Uninsured Week, Senator John Kerry has proposed a bill that will demand that Congress pass legislation that will cover every single one of the 45 million Americans living without health insurance by 2011 – or they are on their own for their health insurance costs.

Senators and Congressmen have some of the best health care coverage out there, and it's American taxpayers who foot the bill. Now, they must take leadership and pass comprehensive health care coverage by 2011 – or the subsidies for their own health insurance disappear. 45 million people – 11 million kids – without health insurance is too great an issue in the richest country in the world to sit idly by.

Sign our online petition TODAY and urge your leaders in Washington to pass this important bill.

[antigop]

1. It depends upon what is meant by "protect all Americans"

They could pass some awful bill similar to Massachusetts that just forces you to buy coverage. The coverage could be expensive.

[sandnsea]

2. But would be subsidized

The way it is in Massachusetts. Health care is not free anywhere in the world. Any plan that is passed is going to cost everybody money and is going to be mandatory. It will not work otherwise.

[Selatius]

4. The Massachusetts way is something I oppose.

It sets up three extra bureaucracies: One to police people to get them to stay enrolled in insurance, one to administer a high risk pool of people who can't qualify or are too poor to afford it as it is, and one to deal and barter with private HMOs.

There was a single-payer plan passed by the California legislature that I felt was superior, but Arnold vetoed it because it would've removed private health insurance companies and replaced it with something akin to state-level Medicare, except that it would've covered everybody and would've had collective bargaining power with health care providers, helping to prevent exorbitant inflation in health care costs.

[sandnsea]

5. When you don't have anything

and you'll die without a doctor and lab tests, it sounds pretty good.

It's pretty much what we have in Oregon right now, except it's not mandatory consequently you have to go on a waiting list to get it. If it were mandatory, we'd have had health insurance years ago, for about $70 a month.

No plan is going to please everybody.

[Mass]

7. The MA plan is very far from $70 a month. The lowest plans are about $150 a month/person

with a very high deductible and copay. The plan is good for those whose plan is paid by the state (Masshealth is a good plan). It is a lot less good when you are left to work with private insurances on your own. Either you have the money necessary to pay for an expensive insurance or you have to pay a lot of out of pocket expenses before you get reimbursed for anything (and it is not that clear what happens to people with preexisting conditions).

[sandnsea]

8. $0 - $20,000 family of 4

This also indicates children in families up to $60,000 are elgibile for subsidized insurance. Of course they're going to pay more.
http://www.hcfama.org/act/mahealthreformlaw.asp

Here's $36 a month at 200% of poverty level, $40,000 for a family of 4

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eohhs2terminal&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Consumer&L2=Insurance+(including+MassHealth)&L3=Additional+Insurance+and+Assistance+Programs&L4=Insurance+Partnership&sid=Eeohhs2&b=terminalcontent&f=masshealth_consumer_additional_inspart_employee&csid=Eeohhs2

The Commonwealth Care plans are for people and families above the poverty level. Their highest premium is $106 for a Plan 4, which applies to a family of 4 at $61,000.

http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=81&pageID=13&Subpages=yes#cost

Commonwealth Choice is for people with incomes higher than that.

http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=85&pageID=13&Subpages=yes

I sincerely think you guys are being led astray by people stuck on single payer or nothing - which is ALSO going to cost money.

Oh, and according to the MassHealth web site, I'd pay $27 in Massachusetts. Thought I'd add that.

[John Q. Citizen]

66. Single payer will cost much less for everyone. I think you are being misled by the

private insurance companies.

[sandnsea]

68. Massachusetts State Web Site Figures

I can't be misled by the actual figures for the actual programs that people apply for on the very web site that I posted.

It's absolutely impossible.

[John Q. Citizen]

69. You are misled that the total cost of the program to everyone is cheaper than

single payer would be.

Somebody has to pay for the multi-millon dollar saleries of the private insurance executives, the sky scrappers insurance companies build, the advertzing, and the profits for their stock holders.

Tax payers are paying to inrich private insurance companies.

You probably think electricity is cheaper after deregulation also. You know, privatization is a god send and all that.

Suckers bought that, and suckers use tax money to inrich private insurance companies.

Good luck.

[sandnsea]

70. The cost is the cost

Very low income families are still getting it for free. Moderate income families get it for between $27 - $105. It isn't until households are in the $50-60,000 bracket that they start paying $150.00 a month.

It compares to the 6% that Oregon calculated for the single payer bill a few years ago. Households with incomes above $20,000 are going to have to pay something for health insurance - whether it's a tax withholding or a premium.

It is not true that the cost of subsidized health insurance to the individual is necessarily more expensive than the taxes single payer would cost.

This is one reason Edwards' plan is the best. People can buy into either subsidized insurance OR the govt plan, like Medicaid. As time goes on, and people start looking at administrative costs, if the Medicaid plan is cheaper and working better, people will put their money there and demand government end the for profit insurance.

You do know most, if not all, of the country has ended "single payer" worker's comp in favor of "competition" from various insurance companies, right? Why would they go to govt health coverage when they've been busy getting the govt OUT of all these agencies? I don't think it was a good idea, but that's the mood of the country.

SO WHAT if it isn't the most cost efficient plan to go forward, its the going forward that counts. Once everybody has the ability to go to the doctor when they want to, they'll demand it become more cost efficient and will be ready to consolidate into single payer.

It's just like domestic partnership. It's an outrage to advocate for civil unions, noooo, it's gay marriage or nothing. Funny enough, gay Oregonians are very happy about this. Just like the uninsured would be very happy to get some kind of coverage to see a doctor. If they start to become aware of the lapses in insurance coverage, they maybe they'll get busy advocating for something better.

[John Q. Citizen]

71. Romney likes it.

Mass. Bill Requires Health Coverage
State Set to Use Auto Insurance As a Model

By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 5, 2006; Page A01

BOSTON, April 4 -- The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill Tuesday that would require all residents to purchase health insurance or face legal penalties, which would make this the first state to tackle the problem of incomplete medical coverage by treating patients the same way it does cars.

Gov. Mitt Romney (R) supports the proposal, which would require all uninsured adults in the state to purchase some kind of insurance policy by July 1, 2007, or face a fine. Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state.

Romney said the bill, modeled on the state's policy of requiring auto insurance, is intended to end an era in which 550,000 people go without insurance and their hospital and doctor visits are paid for in part with public funds.

"We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance," Romney said in an interview. "And cars are a lot less expensive than people."

more...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html

Edwards bill is too expensive. Gawd I hope Gore gets in the race.....

And lord knows, state mandated auto insurance works great, until you get hit by an unisured motorist.

It's a scam. Just like manditory private auto insurance. But hey, Mitt and you both say it's great.

[sandnsea]

72. Blue blue Oregon likes it too

It's what we have, Family Health Insurance Assistance Program. If it were mandated, everybody who is uninsured would have something. It's not, so the state isn't required to fully fund it. Consequently, there's a waiting list.

Kitzhaber, the nation's leader in universal health care, signed it into law.

I don't think it's going to work in the long run either, but it is a step in the right direction for people who have nothing.

And it's really a cheap shot to throw Romney at me when it's clear you're the one who isn't fully informed on the issue.

[John Q. Citizen]

73. I canvassed Kitzhaber in 1990 at his door in Roseburg on my second day

canvassing for Oregan Fair Share. He was President of the Senate at the time. i spent about a half hour talking to him.

I didn't know much about the issues on my second day working.

But after three years of canvassing and learning from the leaders of the health Care reform movement in Seven States, I learned a lot.

So what do you know?

[sandnsea]

74. Kitzhaber signed subsidized health insurance

And that Oregon has not passed single payer and has not passed a right to health care - but it does support subsidized health insurance - which is the entire point of the thread. Not to mention the concept that the far left just can't seem to get to sink into their heads.

So all that canassing didn't do squat for you if you didn't LISTEN to anybody you were canvassing.

[John Q. Citizen]

75. Blue Cross is a non-profit organization.

Maybe you should move to MA. It sounds like you are postively ga ga about subsudizing for profit health insurance Companies. It's the same idea as subsidizing for profit mercenary companies in Iraq.

You like it, I don't.

that it won't work is evident.

What kind of coverage are the poor in MA going to get? You didn't mention that. But I guess that's not too important to you.

[sandnsea]

76. MassHealth - as always - read the damn link

$0 - family of 4 earning $20,000. ZERO. Just like always.

Here's the various insurers FHIAP uses, not just Blue Cross. And if nonprofit is so much better, why can't everybody afford Blue Cross anyway??

http://egov.oregon.gov/OPHP/FHIAP/carriers.shtml

I am ga ga about Saving Lives. Something that ideologues miss in their zeal to demand perfection over progress. If ten more people get to see a doctor, I'm on board.

It's WORKING. It doesn't matter whether I like it or not. People get to see a friggin' doctor. That's ALL that matters. I honestly don't care if it costs taxpayers 50 times more than single payer would. If everybody gets to see a doctor when they're sick, and rich taxpayers are willing to pay for it rather than give up their precious free market health care - then fuck them, they can pay for it. I don't care. As long as everybody gets medical care, and preventive care, when they need it. If subsidized insurance is the only thing they'll pay for, then that's okay with me.

[John Q. Citizen]

78. And when they decide it's too expensive next year? ANd they start cutting benefits, and the

insurance company reneges and you have to sell your house to pay your bill?

If private health insurance worked, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We already have private insurance companies, and it isn't working.

What is your background and experience in health-care issues? Why do you consider yourself well versed on what people want? How do you know people don't support single payer? Have you knocked on thousands of doors and asked them? Or 3 doors and asked them?

Or do you get your expertise by reading the paper?

[sandnsea]

79. Oh brother, that happens anyway

How do you figure people NOT having any benefits is better than them having to fight to keep the benefits they get? Once you get EVERYBODY used to having coverage, then EVERYBODY is invested to get involved to make the appropriate changes. You aren't going to get them to fight for themselves until they understand what it is to have health coverage in the first place. The people you're talking about have pretty much never had health insurance, they don't ever see doctors in the first place. Let's just get them in the system, however we need to do it. When it's too expensive, we will obviously go to single payer.

And by the way, four years as Office Manager in a treatment center, helping people figure out all sorts of problems, not the least of which was health insurance and assistance programs. 3 years insurance billing, including Medicare, Medicaid. Ten years helping my mother maneuver a variety of health programs after her heart transplant.

LISTENING to them, and tons more people I've helped over the years. Real people in the real world dealing with real medical crises. Talking to people during a campaign is the least of what I've done in my life.

Oh, and one more friggin' time, the information I posted is from the State Of Massachusetts - not a goddamn newspaper. The reason I know how to find that information on a web site in a completely different state is because - that's what I spent half my working life doing, helping people figure out how to get govt health care assistance.

[John Q. Citizen]

83. Well I see why you would oppose single payer. It would have eliminated your

opportunity to be the helper and defender of the poor because everyone would just be able to go to the doctor when they needed to.

They wouldn't need you as an interceedant.

That's a little selfish, but hey, I guess you prefer that system. It certainly gives you more power over the lives of other people.

[sandnsea]

87. I don't oppose single payer

I support any system that will help everybody have the ability to see a doctor. Whatever system that can be passed.

And the very poor have Medicaid. They already can see a doctor when they need to. It's the working low income who are in need. The not quite poor and single adults.

I guess you've run out of arguments on the issue so you have to attack me. First you attack me for doing nothing, then you attack me because I've actually made a difference in the lives of real people. Pathetic.

[John Q. Citizen]

88. I'm sorry, i thought you opposed single payer.

The Oregon plan was a step in the right direction, though it's too bad our leaders are so intimidated by the private insurance industry that they refuse to take them on. Insurance companies provide zero health care to anyone, ever. They just suck money out that could be going to provide health care services.

The biggest contribution of the Oregon plan was recognizing that there are no unlimited resources. By ranking health care procedures based on efficacy and outcomes, resources can be put where they do the most benefit.

Insurance is a socialistic concept, when you stop and think about it. So it works well when it's run as a socialistic concept. When we try to provide a socialistic goal within a capitalistic frame work, it works very badly.

I could go for a single payer system that utilized non-profit Blue Cross as the single payer entity. It would of course abolish medicare, Medicaid, VA, chip, etc and all health care dollars would go into the single payer system and all health care payments would come out of the system. This would save a huge amount of money for everyone including care providers. We already spend 40% more per capita on health care than the next most expensive system in the world. We can insure all Americans right now for full medical, dental, eye, and mental health without spending anything more than we currently do.


I see the MA plan as a step back wards. It will only encourage the private insurance industry to suck out more tax dollars for their personal profit.

No more band aid solutions.

Asking your background/expertise and knowledge was not accusing you of doing nothing. It was trying to get a handle on where you are coming from.

[sandnsea]

90. OR & MA - same plan

How can one be a step forward and the other a step backwards - when they're the same plan!

Bla bla bla how much we spend on health care. Obviously people don't care about how much they spend on health care - because they believe they are getting superior quality for their money. We spend more on water then the rest of the world too, because people believe they are getting some sort of value in bottled water. Americans will spend boat loads on the stupidest shit while refusing to pay for practical things if they aren't marketed correctly. Ask any small business person what their biggest challenge is - marketing. When everybody in the world comes here for medical care, people will pay whatever amount it takes to maintain that. You are not thinking about who pays.

And no, you were not trying to "get a handle on" anything about me. You were attacking me, plain and simple.

[John Q. Citizen]

92. Ore and MA are not the same plan, which demonstrates your lack of understanding.

Americans go to Tailand for health care. It's cheaper to fly round trip with the family than to get the same proceedure done here, often. You don't know what you are talking about.

I'm done for now. Read up on it, and good luck. You are a victim waiting to happen, and I'm tired of wasting my time on you.

[sandnsea]

93. Attacking again, and they're very similar

They both have a basic Medicaid plan for those at the poverty level, they both have a subsidized insurance plan, they both have subsidies for small business, they both have programs for children and the elderly. They're essentially the same - with Mass being required which means it's fully funded as opposed to Oregon's hope and pray you get on the waiting list before you die plan.

And there you go, attacking again. Like I said, you had no interest in "where I'm coming from". I hope you don't take this attitude with you when you go out canvassing.

[sandnsea]

77. Food Stamps subsidize Big Ag

Would you suggest we make all the farms in the country organize under one umbrella, and instead of using food stamps at grocery stores, we have to go to a co-op and get the food baskets they give us?

If it's okay for corporate grocers and farmers to make cajillions from food stamps, then it's okay for insurance companies to make cajillions from health care.

It's just the absolutely fucked up way our quasi-fascist system works. Poor people do not get help unless someone is making money from it.

[John Q. Citizen]

81. I see you don't understand single payer health insurance. That's OK, you aren't

alone.

Read up on the issue and then let's talk. Until then parroting the propaganda of the insurance companies is hurting the poor, the middle class and the wealthy. We are all hurt by the current non-system. Only the insurance industry likes it.

You prefer a permanant under class dependent on welfare apparently, because that is the system you champion.

I would rather self insure as a country.

[sandnsea]

86. Food is for profit

Is that not correct? Do food stamps not subsidize the food industry??

[John Q. Citizen]

89. Your analogy is false. If it subsidized "food insurance" then I suppose you would be on the money.

Imagine this; "Food Insurance" Companies set up between consumers and grocery stores that you payed a set amout to every month. You go to the store, and try to buy some carrots. The store contacts the "Food insurance" company and asks them if they will cover bunch carrots. The company says, no, but they do cover frozen green beans. So you take your green beans home, the grocery store bills your "Food insurance" company, and you then get another bill from the grocery store for your co-pay.
Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? Or perhaps your "food insurance" company has a list of participating stores. You can't go to the Albertsons down the street, instead you have to drive accross town to the Safeway. Just as stupid.

Food stamps subsidizes the cost of growing and distributing food for low income folks. And you can use them at many farmers markets to buy from mom and pop organic growers or you can buy from Safeway or from whereever you want.

A single payer health insurance system would subsidize the cost of delivering health care services for some, but it would also lower the cost of services for everyone, including the wealthy.

In the early days of the food stamp program, as you probably remember, stores would give out chits as change. These were routinly lost, or if you moved to a different neighborhood, never redeemed. That was stupid and I'm glad they cut it out, long ago since it was an inefficient waste of money that was a direct free subsidy to private businesses for nothing in return.

[sandnsea]

91. Then the profit isn't the issue

You're talking about problems in our health system. Even Medicare and Medicaid have procedures they won't pay for. The OHP does, single payer will too. That's not an insurance problem, that's a reality of cost problem.

My point is that we subsidize lots of industries with programs for the poor. That's why food stamps are in the Dept of Ag budget, it helps stabilize farm prices.

That insurance is going to make money - well I just don't give a shit. That's the economic system we've got. Whatever. It's not going to change. We subsidize all kinds of things in this country. If subsidizing health insurance is the only way to start getting people some kind of access to a doctor - then I just don't care about it. The crap people spend their money on - if they're so stupid they are willing to spend more on subsidized health insurance than single payer - I don't care, fuck them, I just don't care. Hillary and $1500 hair, Edwards and $400 hair, whatever the Kerry's spend on their stupid hair. I don't care what people like that have to pay to fund universal health care. They spend money on MUCH STUPIDER SHIT. As long as all low income people can see a doctor, that's what counts.

[antigop]

9. I'll take Kuehl's single-payer California plan, thank you very much n/t

[antigop]

11. I never said it was "Free"-- please don't attribute words to me that I didn't say n/t

[eridani]

14. Health care costs everybody money right now

We just take the premiums paid to private insurers whose mission is to cover as little as possible and transfer it to an agency whose mandate is to do the opposite.

"We are already paying for universal health care. We're just not getting it." --Dennis Kucinich.

[sandnsea]

15. See #8

I posted figures and links to the actual Mass plans available. Subsidized insurance is a perfectly acceptable method of getting everybody into a plan. If insurance needs to be eliminated after that, then people will be more inclined to do it once they're used to everybody having health care to begin with. It is highly unlikely that we will go from our current system to single payer, all in one leap. If we ever get there, it will be by taking a series of steps in that direction.

[eridani]

19. Plans that don't pay up when you get sick are worthless

--and that's what private insurance is all about. Therefore subsidizing insurance companies whose goals are antithetical to risk spreading isn't going to work.

[antigop]

20. California passed single-payer last year. Schwarzenegger vetoed it. n/t

[sandnsea]

59. Oregon voters rejected it, and

rejected a Constitutional amendment declaring health care as a right and demanding a deadline for a universal plan.

And Oregon passed domestic rights for gays, just this week. But no on single payer. What do you think it will take for Indiana and Texas and Alabama to get on board??

[antigop]

60. easy answer: more grassroots work n/t

[sandnsea]

62. Grass over the graves of the dead

When we could have done something to help more people.

[antigop]

64. grass roots needs more work. It's that simple. Obviously, people weren't sold on the idea. n/t

[sandnsea]

65. OR people said NO

What if people looked at the pros and cons and just decided - NO. What then?? People die? Because the single payer adherants can't adjust to something that would save lives in the short run - while we continue to advocate for single payer in the long run?

[antigop]

67. you'll have to ask the grass roots what they did wrong -- I can't answer that n/t

[Greyhound]

82. You do understand that we are already paying more than anybody else, right?

The only sensible answer is the Conyers-Kucinich bill. and it can be implemented almost immediately.

[sandnsea]

85. Good, get it passed n/t

[blm]

3. I think his intention here is to FORCE the debate and frame it in terms the public

can "get" easily.

What would lawmakers do if their OWN healthcare interests rely on what they come up with for those who need it most?

[sandnsea]

6. It's an excellent idea

Good way to get this back on the front burner.

[antigop]

10. But it doesn't force the debate as to whether it's AFFORDABLE

If all it does it force people to buy insurance that is unaffordable, it doesn't fix the problem.

[TayTay]

12. A debate would decide the options

What part of debating this would be bad.

Part of the debate would be the affordability options. It should also include the reality that less and less people are getting their health care through work-based plans and we have to start to plan health care that is not based on where someone works.

Why can't affordability be part of the debate?

[antigop]

13. Look at what the petition says

>>
Congress pass legislation that will cover every single one of the 45 million Americans living without health insurance
>>

I have not read the actual bill.

The OP contained a link that said "Congress pass legislation that will cover every single on of the 45 million Americans living without health insurance."

Now if that's what the bill says, then all Congress has to do is a pass a crappy bill and say, "There -- we did it."

[Mass]

16. Which is the reason why we must continue to press the question.

This bill never intended to close the debate, but to open it. There are plenty of competing bills in the House and the Senate. It is important to press this debate, and to press for a good solution to emerge. Nobody said otherwise, and this is why I posted Conyers's petition as well, and will post Kennedy's bill as soon as I find it.

Once again, it is our duty to be active and not to expect everything to fall from the sky.

[antigop]

21. Who expected "everything to fall from the sky"? n/t

[antigop]

24. I'm not "expecting everything to fall from the sky"

I'm working on getting a REAL bill passed, not a bunch of weasel words from Kerry that don't mean anything. Kerry would be better off getting behind a REAL plan that actually fixes the problem.

[Mass]

17. Even AFFORDABLE is a very relative term.

[antigop]

22. Yes, as we are finding in Massachusetts n/t

[cooolandrew]

18. That is a genius idea...

Now let's see if Barack and Hillary sign it.

[marmar]

23. Thanks again John Kerry.....

and another "Are you happy now, dumbasses?" to the 50 million who voted to continue this malignant presidency.

[PA Democrat]

25. Done and forwarded. Recommended.

[OzarkDem]

26. Not good enough

2011 is a long way off. We need a solution before the end of this session, period. There's no reason it can't be done.

And any legislator who wants to wait until after 2008 should give up his health insurance now.

We didn't work hard and donate so much of our hard earned money so Dems could sit on their a** in Congress and use important issues to run for 2008.

Get to work, Dems, get the job done now!

[blm]

27. Universal healthcare is in the pipes - he's forcing GOP lawmakers to deal with the armtwisting

that they will endure.


This bill is a DEVICE - an armtwisting device. And created the FRAME that will resonate - the CITIZENS need access to exact same healthcare that lawmakers get with OUR tax dollars. If Congress won't do that, then they deserve to lose their own access to healthcare.

[antigop]

28. NO, I think it's just a bunch of weasel words that don't really mean anything n/t

[ProSense]

30. It's a petition calling for Congress to act.

Why are you panicking? Write the Senator and express your concerns.

On edit, write to both your Senators.

[antigop]

32. I'm not panicking, just stating the obvious n/t

[OzarkDem]

41. Then they should act now

not in 2011.

[ProSense]

47. Don't tell me: pick a petition and tell Congress. n/t

[antigop]

29. Kerry should be spending his time getting behind a REAL solution n/t

[blm]

31. He submitted Universal Healthcare plans in 2005

that started with EVERYONE under 18 as a reasonable FIRST STEP for that GOP controlled congress. He spent his own funds to put up billboards for Kid's First healthcare in GOP districts all over the country to pressure Republicans in congress.

Now, with the Dem controlled congress he's behind a full Universal Healthcare plan. I'm surprised you didn't know that already - but, then again, it's not likely the corpoirate media wants to report these important issues, so if you don't read it here at places like DU, it's hard to access this type of info.

[antigop]

33. And what bill has he sponsored for UNIVERSAL care -- not just for kids? n/t

[antigop]

34. If he's behind a "full universal healthcare plan", what BILLS has he sponsored/co-sponsored?

And what is his plan?

Saying he's behind a "full Universal Healthcare plan" is one thing -- where are the bills? Where are the plans?

Other than S. 95 -- what is he supporting?

[Mass]

35. I still cannot figure what you are whining about? Do you not want a debate in the Senate and the

house? What is your problem here? Am I missing something?

Once again, this bill is not a bill to fix a problem. It is a bill to have the discussion to fix the problem, and, whether this surprises you or not, nothing will happen before the discussion starts in the House and the Senate.

If you want Kerry to present the same bill than Kennedy or to co-sponsor Kennedy's bill, write to his office or call. Whining in this thread will accomplish NOTHING.

Here is the bill that Kerry cosponsored in the 109th congress (guess who wrote it. I do not expect Kerry to write extensive healthcare bills when Kennedy is the chair of the HELP Committee. May be he trusts our senior senator).

S.16
Title: A bill to reduce to the cost of quality health care coverage and improve the availability of health care coverage for all Americans.
Sponsor: Sen Kennedy, Edward M. (introduced 1/24/2005) Cosponsors (17)
Latest Major Action: 1/24/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. COSPONSORS(17), BY DATE : (Sort: alphabetical order)


Sen Reid, Harry - 1/24/2005
Sen Stabenow, Debbie - 1/24/2005
Sen Corzine, Jon S. - 1/24/2005
Sen Schumer, Charles E. - 1/24/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. - 1/24/2005
Sen Akaka, Daniel K. - 1/24/2005
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. - 1/24/2005
Sen Levin, Carl - 1/24/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. - 1/24/2005
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 1/24/2005
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV - 1/24/2005
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 1/24/2005
Sen Pryor, Mark L. - 1/24/2005
Sen Durbin, Richard - 1/24/2005
Sen Dayton, Mark - 1/25/2005
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 1/31/2005
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. - 2/3/2005

[antigop]

36. That bill is from 2005 and I'm, not whining just stating the obvious n/t

[antigop]

37. If you want to sign his petition, then go ahead, but frankly I won't waste my time n/t

[Mass]

38. I was talking about Conyers's petition! Do something useful rather than whining!

http://johnconyers.com/HR676

And good bye, because I do not have any time to lose with you. I care to see things advance, not to listen to whiners.

[antigop]

39. The OP had a link to sign KERRY'S PETITION -- that's what it said n/t

[Mass]

43. As well as a link to Conyers's petition.

I could not care less what you sign. I do not understand why you whine like that. Just ignore the thread if you do not like the petitions.

[antigop]

45. Wow! Did I strike a nerve or what? I state an opinion and am accused of "whining" n/t

[antigop]

42. I care to see things advance as well, and Kerry's petition won't do it

And what makes you think that I don't do anything "useful" on the healthcare issue.

I've probably done more than most people on DU, but I guess that doesn't count.

[Mass]

46. Forget me!

[OzarkDem]

48. No, we don't want debate

We want action on universal health care now.

There's nothing to debate - you either have a plan that provides affordable, comprehensive universal health coverage or you don't. You either work to make that happen or you don't in which case you use it as a "campaign issue" and "debate" about it.

[antigop]

49. Thank you, Ozarkdem! n/t

[ProSense]

51. Okay, I look forward to this passing tomorrow based on your post. n/t

[ProSense]

Oops, why wait? I look forward to it passing today! n/t

[Mass]

55. In the next three minutes. Obviously, they will convince the senate and the house to pass

a single payer universal healthcare bill by UC. I do not have any problem if this happens because I think this is indeed the solution.

Sadly, without a debate, this will not happen.

[Mass]

52. Unfortunately, there will need to have a debate in the House and the Senate if you

want something done. If the debate does not even start, the bill will not be voted. I am not talking about campaign issue here. I am talking about having the House and the Senate taking the subject into consideration.

And, unfortunately, democracy still means debate on how to accomplish something. We may agree with the goals (universal healthcare), but unfortunately many, even on DU, do not think this means "single payer" or do not think it is doable. How do you expect convincing them if you do not have this debate? Of course, Kennedy can force his bill or Conyers can force its bill. Unfortunately, it will go nowhere if the debate does not happen.

[antigop]

54. Then you debate ACTUAL PLANS, ACTUAL SOLUTIONS, not weasel words n/t

[Mass]

57. What weasel words??? All the bill proposes is that the House and the Senate are mandated to have a

debate to discuss these solutions. If you believe that the GOP and half of the Dems want to have this debate, you are dreaming. Conyers and Kennedy have proposed good bills. If they never come to the floor, they will stay good bills. Kerry can propose his own version, but it will also be another bill that does not come to the floor.

[antigop]

58. These weasel words....

from the OP

>>
a bill that will demand that Congress pass legislation that will cover every single one of the 45 million Americans living without health insurance by 2011
>>

[karynnj]

50. That's an interesting mix of co-sponsors

Ranging from the liberal (Kennedy, Boxer, Corzine etc to some of the most conservative Democtars like Pryor, Schumer, Reid and Dorgon.

[OzarkDem]

44. it wasn't universal

The only people guaranteed health care regardless of income or circumstance under Kerry's original plan were the same groups - children and seniors.

Everything else was linked to having an income, buying insurance or getting it from an employer. There were no realistic provisions for catastrophic illness.

[OzarkDem]

40. Twist arms now not after 2008

Come on Dems - git r done. Find another issue to run on in 2008, take care of this one NOW!

[Cleita]

53. This is written into the Constitutions of many advanced

industrialized nations in the world. Roughly, in their own words, they state that access to health care is a human right and no one is to be denied what they need in the way of health care. It has forced these governments to come up with a national health care plan where no one is left behind, or with a plan like single payer universal health care to comply with their constitutional obligations. We need the same ammendment.

[antigop]

56. CLeita, please go back and read the OP

That's not what Kerry's petition says.

It doesn't link to his actual bill, so we don't know the actual wording, and I couldn't find it on thomas.

[Cleita]

61. You misunderstood me.

What I said was besides what the OP and Kerry says. If Kerry's health plan is the same one he campaigned on in 2004, he promised to bring the same health care to the masses as Congress has. When I researched Congress's health care, it turns out there are a variety of platinum health care plans they can choose from the private insurers and HMOs. However, this would be a disaster on a nationwide basis pretty much bankrupting the system even more so than today.

So, instead, we would get a system like Massachussetts has now, where every employer and individual would be responsible for purchasing health care unless they are so dirt poor that they qualify for Medic-Aid. This system will bring people inadequate health care coverage with huge deductibles and unaffordable co-pays. Now I'm sure what Kerry means is if Congress couldn't have a health plan until everyone has one, then a plan similar to the above would be implemented. I don't think it's a good solution. We need something more concrete.

[antigop]

63. Thanks, Cleita. I agree -- we need something more concrete. n/t

[NotGivingUp]

80. they can take their mandatory health insurance and stick it.

it's become obvious...it's all a game...there is nobody working for us.

[SoCalDem]

84. Rich folks can still afford to pay their own way.. no biggie

As much as the blather on about it, they are really just stalling until we boomers croak.. the demographics then will make it more "affordable".

[Manifestor_of_Light]

94. What if you don't have a job and can't get one???? How ya gonna pay?

That's what I wanna know.
But you can call me Doctor. (Paper doctor, not MD)