A government sponsored single-payer health insurance plan open to all Americans.

by Steve Heller (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 36 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 12:49:46 PM

  (0+)

There was an article written making the same point about a "privatized" military. It was thought to be great satire... but that was a long time ago... before Blackwater... 2003, I think.

Today's satire is having a terrible way of becoming tomorrow's "reality." The "anti-collectivists" would gladly eliminate "socialized law enforcement."

by waldopaper (15 articles, 3 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 609 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 1:28:17 PM

  (0+)

when you wake up at 3am to see a man with a pry bar at your back door and there is no insurance you blow a hole through the door with your 12 gauge

by dave stanley (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 286 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 1:28:31 PM

  (0+)

I'm a progressive liberal, but I am also a responsible gun owner ready to defend my wife and myself if need be.

by Steve Heller (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 36 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 2:10:12 PM

  (0+)

the American army has been defeated

after 5 years in Iraq the equipment needs to be replaced the men and women are burnt

73,248 of them are dead

248,024 are crippled for life

 your police have all been trained by  Black water the fed  govt has gave

all the police forces grants to  buy military Equipment

you  will be greeted by Black water or Black water trained troops in America

 the army isn't coming home  untill there is nothing that needs coming home

they want Black water all foreign troops who have  no qualms about killing Americans raping them and looting them.

Papers please ! 

by dave stanley (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 286 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 1:34:03 PM

  (0+)

Incredibly well written, you covered the entire issue succinctly and with a clarity I have not seen before. Keep up the good work my friend.

by all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 144 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 1:50:36 PM

  (0+)

Very kind of you to say.

by Steve Heller (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 36 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 2:16:42 PM

  (0+)

. . . of the scary s-word. I really hope you folks get some kind of decent healthcare system soon, not just for the sake of all those Americans who don't have insurance and those who have insurance that covers everything except what happens, but for our sakes up here in Soviet Canuckistan (a Pat Buchanan coinage). Because we have just hit Shock Doctrine heaven, and Harpo is no doubt eyeing our healthcare system again.

We voted Tommy Douglas (Kiefer Sutherland's granddaddy), the Father of Canadian Medicare, "The Greatest Canadian," but that is probably wearing a bit thin as a warning to politicians not to gouge any more out of our healthcare system in order to cover our burgeoning corporate welfare budget. But if you folks get some kind of a decent system, that might put the brakes on the healthcare "shock therapy" which our dear leaders have no doubt been privately caucusing about since the market crashed last week.

I will keep my fingers and toes crossed for y'all.

by delia (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 112 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 6:25:17 PM

  (0+)

Nice article, you know - until we get the "we" thing, and we clean house in Washington putting real people instead of corporate fat cats - doubt we'll see it.  The Military and Health Industrial complexes are draining the treasury and our personal pocket books.  

When we spend more than any other nation on the planet per person for health care - and we get horrible care for most, no care for 47 million and great care for the elite - you would think that would be enough to get groups of people at every representatives office 24/7/365.  But alas, no.  We're all too busy being part of the "worker insecurity" afraid to leave our desks.

The military budget of the US is more than all other nations combined.  More than 50 cents on every Federal dollar collected - right there is the source of revenue for health care.  Trim that down, to say 35 cents on the dollar, still out spending the top 10 nations - trim the nearly 800 bases throughout the world and viola!  Health care for all.

But that's a dream. 

I hope some day we start taking this country back and putting corporate interests and the wealth machine for the 1% in its proper place and we start caring about the human race - ending poverty - health care - education and ways for everyone to reach their true potential.  

by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 585 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 9:53:51 PM

  (0+)

Wow, Stephen, you really make a strong point. I agree with the posts above: It's incredibly well written and well thought out. Bravo!

And please please please don't get me wrong. I absolutely agree that we need socialized medical coverage.

 But having studied the ACLU's website for seven years now, let me voice another concern which would never have even come to mind prior to 9-11-01:

The National Security Letters issued by FBI under the Patriot Act grant the FBI unilateral powers they never had before, without a judge's oversight, no warrant, no probable cause and basically at the whim of the individual FBI agent. (The only requirement is based on "an authorized investigation" which is authorized by the FBI agent himself/herself, ie who is self-certifying their good faith-based action without any definition of terrorist or criminal activity as prerequisite to such "authorized investigation"). These NSL's are FBI-issued subpoenas for individual records: IE Medical records, internet, phone, etc...YOUR records which are delivered so secretly because, you see, anyone (like your doctor) who tells ANYONE---I really mean ANYONE, even their girlfriend----that YOUR records were forked over to the Feds will be jailed for five years. That's part of the Patriot Act.

Well, the concern is the rate at which these NSL's are being wildly abused. And who they are being issued for. Far from terrorists' records being sought (according to FBI agent Mike German/now ACLU counsel, only ONE terrorist has been caught since 9-11 using NSL's) it is activists, religious and peace groups who are being targeted as "Terrorist" by the FBI. Scary, eh?

Where (prior to 9-11) less than 20 such NSL's were issued each year, between 2003-2005 there were 143,000 of them----that's 993 per week----53% of which were for Americans, born and naturalized alike, according to Mike German. The rest were for cases based on racial profiling, with hte exception of ONE terrorist being caught as a result of these NSL's.

So the question is:
With the government itself paying for our medical care, how absolutely easy does it become for the government to "sneak and peek" at our private medical records just for purposes of cracking down on vocal citizens?

What about the reality that Medicare just vastly underpays its receipients? What of the fact that Schwartzenegger, in California, is trying to cut back Medical and Medicare by more than 50% just to fund state-wide debts?

Is the assumption we are making (question assumptions, always!) that *our American* socialized healthcare will be as good as that enjoyed by Canada and Europe, based on reality or just pipedreaming?

Let's also not forget that Europeans pay half their paychecks to taxes---because in large part of socialized medicine.

Again please do not, do not get me wrong. I really agree that we need socialized healthcare. Oh yes. The system is really not working as it is.

But I also wanted to point out the pitfalls. SOmething to think about and what can we do? I don't know the answers. Talk to the ACLU and other civil liberties groups and see what they would have to say about the risks.

Seems to me that in order to safeguard our medical privacy from the Government and the FBI agents themselves, we've got to topple the Patriot Act and other freedom-usurping legislation.

Center for Constitutional Rights www.ccr.com or www.centerforconstitutionalrights.com

Electronic Frontier Foundation: www.eff.org

ACLU: www.aclu.org

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 2:56:52 AM

  (0+)

Thanks for your post.  I was afraid that people might misconstrue my point, and I think you have.

The point I was trying to make in my slightly snarky way is that a govt. sponsored health insurance plan open to all Americans is NOT socialized medicine, and thus the main argument used against it by ins. companies and some politicians is a false one.  Again, govt. sponsored health insurance is not socialized medicine.  The govt. would not employ and control doctors like they do cops, and doctors, not the govt., would decide what's best for their patients, after which the govt. sponsored plan, funded by taxes (our money), would pay the costs, very much like medicare does now.

Having (hopefully) clarified that, your point about privacy concerns is spot-on.  I fear the govt. snooping in my medical records, credit card records, library records, travel records, etc. at least as much as I fear criminals stealing my identity.  Privacy concerns should be getting more attention than they are, because the less privacy we have, the freedom we have.

Which is why we should all be hectoring our Senators and House Reps to cut retroactive immunity out of the FISA bill.

by Steve Heller (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 36 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 8:28:29 AM

  (0+)

The penultimate sentence of my post above should have read:

"Privacy concerns should be getting more attention than they are, because the less privacy we have, the less freedom we have."

by Steve Heller (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 36 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 8:42:07 AM

  (0+)

Sorry, I hit send before I responded to the other part of your post.  Yes, Medicare does underpay for services, and there are other problems with Medicare.  But it works with only 3% admin costs, and overall is fairly efficient.  Improvements are always needed, especially in regards to updating the fee for services payments.

But I think that our nation, and our national security, would be stronger if we can get healthier.  And that means universal health care, in one form or another.

I know he's pretty much out of the running, but John Edward's plan is a good one.  Hopefully his plan or a very similar one will be on the agenda for whoever is president.   http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/

by Steve Heller (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 36 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 8:36:07 AM

  (0+)

your comparison between police protection and healthcare is clever for making a point, but when is the last time that you called the cops and it cost $300K?

And, at what frequency do we call the police as compared to seeing a doctor?

I'm 61 years old and have never called the police in my life except for a fender bender. I have called the doctor.

America is in recession and will likely remain so for an extended period of time. Our government has funded and unfunded debt of some $63 Trillion which will prove impossible for future generations to pay.

I would dearly love to see and example of universal healthcare that is affordable in a nation of 300 million people, of which nearly a 100 million are seniors and boomers. Show me a way of not passing the cost and debt to others and I'm there.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:16:33 PM

  (0+)

Mike, thanks for your comments.  As far as a universal health plan that does not pass the cost on to us, the citizens, I think we can set it up so that only a small part of the cost will be passed on to us.  I'm not selling the pie-in-the-sky notion that we can get universal healthcare without having to pay a dime for it.  But costs can be mostly covered by the following:

Savings from reduced admin. costs.  Private insurance admin costs on average 12%, while Medicare has less than 3% admin costs).  This could save scores or even hundreds of billions of dollars a year;

John Edwards' plan calls for saving $$ by creating "regional "Health Care Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance."  I know Edwards is pretty much out of the running for the Dem. presidential nomination, but his ideas aren't out of the running, and hopefully his plan, or a very similar version, will be on the agenda of whoever becomes president in Jan. 2009.  More details on Edwards' plan can be found here in a 7 page PDF;

Mandates:  like auto insurance, once the system is set up and in place, everyone should be required to have health insurance.  And like auto insurance, there should be financial penalties for willfully going without health insurance (again, once the new system is in place).  As for the poor, all the universal healthcare plans offered by 3 the leading Dem. candidates contain subsidies for helping those who truly cannot afford to pay, or can only afford to pay a small amount.  They all three claim that if Bush's massive tax cuts are repealed for those who make over $200,000 a year and we return to the tax rates in force at the end of the Clinton admin., the costs of the subsidies would be paid for.  That means higher taxes, but not for the poor or the middle class, only for those who clear 200 grand a year.  And if everyone in America is covered, the costs will be shared by all, and thus reduced.  Without mandates, as Paul Krugman wrote, "healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later.  This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else.  It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy."  And other nations with health insurance mandates have had a great deal of success with it:  The Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden.

It will take time to change the culture of healthcare in the U.S. and there will be fights about it, you can be sure.  But if progressive leaders are strong and manage to get their message out there (not a sure thing with our corporate controlled media, who no doubt will join with Wall Street and the insurance companies and certain politicians to bash, twist, distort or simply silence the progressive healthcare message), we can succeed and turn universal health care in the U.S. into an affordable and effective reality.

Thanks again for your comments.

by Steve Heller (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 36 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 6:06:34 PM

  (0+)

one other thing, Medicare is set to be insolvent by 2019 (I believe it will be much sooner) after which we will begin to incur enormous shortfalls that in the lifetime of one person are expected to reach $50 Trillion.

How will a government sponsored single pay system head this off?

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 1:30:43 PM

  (0+)

As I wrote above, I think that between admin cost savings, using large groups to Edwards' "health care markets" to give some of the power the ins. companies have and give some bargaining power to consumers, and universal coverage mandates would cover most of the costs, including for the elderly and the soon-to-be elderly.

by Steve Heller (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 36 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 6:10:41 PM

  (0+)

Yes I have to have mandatory Auto insurance so I Pay it. But what do I really get in the form of "protection"? Not much. The only practical benefit I receive is the continued priviledge to drive my car "legally". I will assume people already know how auto insurance works in their practical lives so I won't write a thesis here.

The problem in health care is the disparity between my income's ability to pay and the cost of health care service.  Making the cost of health care insurance mandatory will give me something like my mandatory auto insurance. Only useful unless I really need it. Having this mandatory coverage will let me keep my National ID card and passport or something.

It's going to take a revolution-evolution to bring all this(healthcare) back on the table for these 47 million people now uninsured. I think you will find that even the medically insured find themselves financially vulnerable in drastic cases. Even Medicare has co pays that are beyond the reach of many.

The problem is the COST of Healthcare being in another realm from the means to pay of the vast majority.

by "Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 338 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 2:18:06 PM

  (0+)

Thanks for your comments, HossHoss.  Great screen name.  :-)

The practical benefits you get from mandatory auto insurance are twofold.  First, with mandatory insurance you get lower rates.  Everyone gets lower rates.  I don't know how old you are, but believe me, when auto insurance became mandatory, the costs went way down.

The second benefit is that the protection is there if you're in an accident.  If you're not ever in an accident, you have spent that insurance money and received no direct benefit.  But that is the cost of living in a society with other people.  With auto insurance, all drivers, including you, share the costs, we all pay into the system so the cost is lower for everyone, and if you need the help, it's there.  It will have to be the same for health insurance, which will then help make it more affordable for all of us.

I quote from Paul Krugman:  "The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it."  So mandates are for the benefit of all society.  We'd all be healthier and costs would be lower if we're all sharing the burden (and we're all reaping the benefits, too).

by Steve Heller (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 36 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 6:24:44 PM

  (0+)

No, I had auto insurance before it was mandatory here in Florida, The price has in fact gone up using so called statistics and not my unblemished personal driving record as a yard stick. My coverage has gone down, in fact these same statistics downgraded the value of my car so much it no longer made sense to carry Collision. If I get in a wreck that is not my fault the insurance of the guilty other driver will only have to pay me this rigged estimated value of my car not actually replace my car. Or even repair my car if the cost of the repair exceeds this arbitrary assigned value of my car. Rigging the system this way keeps the mandatory price for insurance the same or higher but the actual coverage is gone.  Meanwhile the mandated profit stream continues to roll in for the Insurance Industry. If I destroy anothers car my insurance is off the hook with 10,000$. That will not replace the more expensive cars we have today. The medical payout is a joke that won't cover even a short stay in a Hospital, much less some kind of surgical procedures. The mandated Auto Insurance is, if not broken, then severely flawed.

It's like property Insurance down here, since they can't come up with a formula for home coverage that people can or will pay they are cancelling home insurance instead. The Insurance industry is more interested in "insuring" their profits than any potential customers interests.

I appreciate your personal reply to me, but I'm still unconvinced and will stay with my original opinion. It's going to take more than just a mandated pool of cash to the insurance Industry to solve this Health Care problem.

by "Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 338 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 9:21:01 PM

  (0+)

You kidding?
Mandatory insurance?

When the day comes that the Government DICTATES what we must spend, and on what.....boy are we in serious trouble.

Do you realize what we are all asking for if we hand that kind of "permission" over to the Feds?
Because once we give them an inch, they will take ten miles.

Let's not forget that boundaries creep.

For example: At this very moment California is poised to control our thermostats by remote. While offering us an "opt out" (illusory or real? Remains to be seen) they also are REQUIRING us to install the remote controllable gadgets....IN OUR OWN HOMES!!

NEVER do I want OUR government telling ME what I MUST DO with MY money!!!

What's next? Food supplies censored and controlled? Mandatory assignment of professions, by the Government? Don't laugh: This was the practice of the former Iron Curtain. And we have to learn from history. If we think this would never happen here, think again. Look at what power you are handing right over to the Feds, by "JUst saying YES" to aquiescing control over YOUR wallet, to the Feds! Duh! Not too smart, folks.

THe Iron Curtain fell when the government relaxed its control over the economy. People became free to protest for the first time....when the government relaxed its control over the economy.

REmember that!

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 3:42:00 AM

  (0+)

I have searched for an answer to the healthcare problem for years and have found none that are palatable to the working members of our society.

Edwards plan would do little to solve the problem. It is simply an election ploy. We are talking Trillions not billions of debt. A Trillion seconds in time is 32,000 years, the U.S. is $63 Trillion in debt.

I lived and worked in Sweden and have studied every healthcare plan in the world that is touted to be the answer. When closely examined, NONE are working well. Sweden represents the highest taxed people on earth...and it isn't enough to maintain their current level of healthcare going forward.

Mitt Romney's plan that was put into place in Mass. is much like Edwards plan and now finds itself $250,000,000 in debt.

I appreciate your effort to find a solution, as we must come up with something, but at this time and place I don't see anything currently offered as a long term solution.

Please visit me at kingofsimple.com and drop me an e-mail, I have tons of info to share with you.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 9:19:36 AM

  (0+)

I don't care who tries to pay for it, the COST of this Service is out of touch with the upper middle classes and below to PAY for it.

Let's blame it on any or all these things: Doctors, Hospitals, Lawyers, Cost of Medical Education, Not enough Doctors, HMO's, Government, Pharmaceutical Industry, and more than I can think of at the moment. Is it a conspiracy or just the collusion of seperate circumstances? It doesn't matter, the PRICE for Medical Services is just too HIGH. As in unreasonably too HIGH.

How to fix that is the one thing ironicly taboo. As in NEVER DISCUSSED

by "Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 338 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:50:33 PM

  (0+)

I sent a link to your article to a "conservative" relative of mine and his response was way too funny not to share here in its exactitude:

\\-------------

by all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 144 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 2:36:40 AM

  (0+)

Amen and pass the plate. When you do the math...NO ONE in the class of the masses can pay for healthcare at the level that we expect in the U.S.

I like you question regarding the circumstances that find ourselves in, conspiracy, collusion, or a collision of two separate matters all together?

Has medical science and procedures advanced to a point that administering the highest level of care across the board to a nation of 300 Million, become impossible in our current economic state? There are problems that lack palatable solutions.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:39:16 AM

  (0+)