Obama Says Health Care a Must This Year - Or Never

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

Obama says health care a must this year - or never

By PHILIP ELLIOTT – 56 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says that if Congress doesn't deliver health care legislation this year, it will never happen.

Obama on Thursday told his re-election campaign-in-waiting that volunteers must pressure lawmakers to support the White House's goal on health care — or else the opportunity would be forever lost. He says delay is unacceptable.

Obama's political organization, Organizing for America, plans a nationwide June 6 kickoff to pressure lawmakers and demonstrate support.

Obama spoke by phone with supporters as he flew on Air Force One back from a West Coast fundraising trip.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hITfom2rwHxvzXH9fMrN4pOUGrqQD98FCQS81

---

Related Post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5736222

[Oregone]

1. Fine, but uh, what type of legislation?

Legislation for the sake of legislation? Reform aimed to please but not challenge the profits of the health care industry?

It all sounds good to rally for "reform". But really, this is an issue that needs specific reform, not lofty language multi-faceted "Third Way" pandering. Sorry if that offends anyone.

[T Wolf]

3. No offense from me toward you - just toward "our" political leaders who obviously do not know what

to do with power.

Obama is stating this now-or-never bullshit in support of minute changes that leave the insurance leeches in charge of your medical care.

Just great.

[L. Coyote]

23. Single-payer now or never!

Not another corporatist dream com true at the expense of our health!!

[MarjorieG]

6. Uncle Teddy, Obama and Dean pushing for a public option. So let's help before giving up.

[Oregone]

9. Thats still not really good (specific) enough for me

The public option can be a whole lot of different things, open to interpretation, manipulation and exploitation. Until they define EXACTLY what "public option" system they are aiming to implement, why would anyone be crazy enough to support "reform" for reform's sake?


Look, you blow your load now, your refractory period may last another century.


If Teddy, Obama, Dean said we are doing Plan 1 with points A,B,C, no compromise, no backing down or we won't even vote along with it, then now you are talking. If their loftly language becomes Schumer's clusterfuck, who fucking cares? Give people something to rally behind other than the concept of rallying. The "public option" in itself is a massive compromise to many to start with, so a specific line in the sand must be drawn if they expect anyone's support. Seriously.

[olegramps]

27. Fuck him and the Health Care Insurance Companies he rode in on.

This total bull shit. You could have voted for McCain and got the same crap.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

33. HEY, I have an idea

Let's not give him any support at all. THAT'll show him, won't it?

Let's just trash what could well be the only chance we have to get affordable, universal health care, simply because we're pissed that Obama isn't giving us EXACTLY what we want.

I mean, how DARE he!


:sarcasm:

[FiveGoodMen]

41. "pissed that Obama isn't giving us EXACTLY what we want"

I don't think he's even in the ballpark.

[ProudDad]

47. What's his plan???????? (n/t)

[lbrtbell]

49. When there's talk about mandatory health insurance

I'd rather have no change at all. There are many people, myself included, who simply can't afford to buy it - let alone pay any penalties. And I don't qualify for any low-income help in my state, because I don't have children.

I'm really, REALLY disappointed in how Obama is selling out to the insurance companies.

[olegramps]

32. If this is what I call a sell out, I will kiss your ass says Obama.

[Jkid]

2. We already have a bill that was introduced to Congress

It's called HR 676. Get started demanding our politicians to pass it. I bet we can pass it by July 4th.

[earcandle]

4. Ues! HR 676 is ready to go. SO LETS GO!

[dgauss]

34. Here is HR 676

http://www.pnhp.org/nhibill/nhi_bill_final.pdf


Here's a description from http://www.hr676.org/

"Basically, House Resolution (H.R.) 676, the “New Expanded Medicare” bill now in the House of Representatives simply creates a new and far more functional “single payer” method of collecting and distributing payments for medical services while leaving the medical system itself completely alone and intact. This will eliminate the hundreds of complicated and redundant payment plans currently imposed on the system by private “for profit” health insurance companies and save literally BILLIONS of dollars every year by eliminating such wasteful duplication. This will allow your doctors offices and hospitals to function much more efficiently and serve your needs much more effectively as well."

It seems to me to be a plan to convert over to single payor over the course of fifteen years. From the bill itself:

SEC. 103. QUALIFICATION OF PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS.

(a) REQUIREMENT TO BE PUBLIC OR NON-PROFIT.

(1) IN GENERAL.—No institution may be a participating provider unless it is a public or not-for profit institution.

(2) CONVERSION OF INVESTOR-OWNED PROVIDERS.—Investor-owned providers of care opting to participate shall be required to convert to not-for profit status.

(3) COMPENSATION FOR CONVERSION.—The owners of such investor-owned providers shall be compensated for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care.

(4) FUNDING.—There are authorized to be appropriated from the Treasury such sums as are necessary to compensate investor-owned providers as provided for under paragraph (3).

(5) REQUIREMENTS.—The conversion to a not for-profit health care system shall take place over a 15-year period, through the sale of U.S. Treasury Bonds. Payment for conversions under paragraph shall not be made for loss of business profits, but may be made only for costs associated with the conversion of real property and equipment.

Subtitle B—Funding
SEC. 211. OVERVIEW: FUNDING THE USNHI PROGRAM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The USNHI Program is to be funded as provided in subsection (c)(1).

(b) USNHI TRUST FUND.—There shall be established a USNHI Trust Fund in which funds provided under this section are deposited and from which expenditures under this Act are made.

(c) FUNDING.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated to the USNHI Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:
(A) Existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care.
(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.
(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.
(D) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

[olegramps]

38. I totally disagree. The insurance companies should be put out of business today.

Not 15 years from now. That like putting the Nazis out of business in 1960. What a piece of crap.

[dgauss]

42. olegramps, I would like to see them put out of business today too,

but this is a wedge that might actually do it, eventually, if passed. The Health Insurance Industry is huge and powerful but this is something that might bring them down for real. John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich are sponsoring it and they would probably like to see this done today, too. What they are doing is sponsoring a bill that their experience tells them might get us there. I don't think this is a piece of crap.

[Old Coot]

12. What are the details of HR 676? nt

[earcandle]

21. It is Dennis Kucinich's proposistion. Look it up.

Basically, medicare for everyone, no one left out paid for by
the money no longer spent on the middle men, known as the
insurance company. 

[annabanana]

30. (John Conyer's). . . . . n/t

[twitomy]

37. Thats what I am for...

I DO NOT WANT the government actually running the Healthcare system..Look at the VA..
But I DO want the insurance companies out of it. They are just bloodsuckers.
So at first blush Medicare for everyone is the way to go...But as I usually am my own Devils Advocate this problem comes to mind: We all know insurance companies love to deny coverage to make a profit and save money..If we went to a Medicare system, it is inevitable that this system will be looking for ways to save $$ as it will be on a budget. Whats to stop them from denying coverage or rationing to keep costs down as it is occuring in other government run systems (most notoriously Britain)? Would we be trading the devil we know with the one we dont? Not stating an opinion, just asking....

[ProudDad]

48. Don't tell my friends who are covered by the VA system

they'll tell you to go f*ck yourself 'cause they LOVE the VA...now that it's being funded a little better.

You are buying into the bullshit that the far right would have you believe about the rest of the civilized world's health care systems.

You should DO SOME HOMEWORK!

Please start here...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02p101&continuous=1

It's an outstanding, unbiased report on how 5 nations have done universal, single-payer health care. Each of those countries does VASTLY better than USAmerica by every standard of health outcomes -- and doesn't drive people to the poorhouse or the grave depending on their insurer or lack of insurer...

There's enough money in the health care system today to give every USAmerican person the best health care available if the profit is wrung out of the system.

Here the care is already being rationed by income (lack of income gets little or none) and employer (or lack of employer) and the profit motive.

[twitomy]

50. You didnt answer my question

How do we know Medicare will not start rationing/denying care?

All you said was "Here the care is already being rationed by income " so you are saying its ok

to ration under Medicare since we are doing it already? So whats the point in changing the

system? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..You may thing thats fine and dandy, but when

you get denied treatment becasue you are over your life expectancy, let me know if you change

your tune.

[earcandle]

61. well we will have the money that has been spent on insurance to cover our healthcare.

[twitomy]

64. Yes we will have those savings..but

Since now healthcare will be "free" to everyone, including those who werent getting it, those
savings will be more than consumed by the increase in care.

[ProudDad]

72. DO YOUR HOMEWORK

Nowhere in HR676 does it say it will be "FREE"!

No one is saying that health care will be "FREE"!

It will be paid for out of taxes and premium payments into the single-payer system that would on aggregate be less than what our aggregate current COST for medical "insurance" is now.

The delivery would be streamlined and, like the civilized world, one would show up, get care, go home and the community will pay the bills.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK before spouting any more RW talking points, ok?

[twitomy]

80. I put Free in brackets for a reason.

And that is because I know it really isnt "FREE" because as you said:

"It will be paid for out of taxes and premium payments into the single-payer system that would on aggregate be less than what our aggregate current COST for medical "insurance" is now."

I agree with the first part of the sentence, but not the second.

An example of the true cost is a thread here, from Canuckistan, if I remember correctly, who
explained a complicated and very risky surgury a relative received in Canada. This person
boasted that it only cost under $200.00, nearly "Free"..We all know the true cost is much more than $200, as it was paid for by tax payer dollars.

The end result is people will have to pluck down little, if any, out of pocket, giving the impression it is "Free"...And we all know about free milk and a cow. The Canadian example is not about someone abusing the system as this was a life or death case, but it does illustrate the mindset of thinking it is "Free" or nearly so.

So that is one way that the savings from taking the insurance companies out of the picture will
be consumed.

The other way is that we are now providing healthcare to those millions who cannot get it. Is this not the goal of healthcare reform? Is not this additional healthcare being provided
going to consume additional resources, i.e. MONEY?

Please dont misunderstand, I am not against changing the healthcare system, and do want the
insurance companies out of it. But If I am anything, it is a pragmatist who looks at things
the way they are, and refuse to delude myself so as to support a POV.

So take the "RW" nonsense somewhere else.


<edit to clarify>

[ProudDad]

71. Answer to your new questions

1) It's RATIONED now by insurance corporations whose MOTIVATION is to make a profit or go to jail!

Medicare is motivated by a mandate to provide health care to human beings.

Medicare IS rationed NOW by the purposefully inadequate coverage written into the law as a compromise to get it passed at all. It is NOT rationed by income level, color, age (other than 65 and over), pre-existing conditions, medical condition, disease or injury incurred as private plans ARE NOW AND FOREVER WILL BE!

Even the crippled Medicare is more well regarded by those who have it than all but the most gold-plated private plans. You couldn't pry it out of people's hands once they have it!


As for your straw man -- I AM NOT SAYING RATIONING BY INCOME IS OK! Where the hell do you read that? LOGIC ERROR, LOGIC ERROR!!!!

NO, the new boss would have the mandate to provide HEALTH CARE not profit for executives and shareholders. The new boss would be accountable to the people through their representatives.

Another straw man (LOGIC ERROR LOGIC ERROR) -- If you think the people or their representatives would allow a government agency to deny treatment due to being "over your life expectancy" -- you're freakin' nuts.

Let me know when you do your homework and quit spouting right-wing bullshit...ok?

[ProudDad]

73. QUICK ANSWER

'cause We the People won't allow it and will have a say in the decision making process...

[twitomy]

86. I see that people having a say has worked out real well...

I mean, this forum is replete with complaints of how the government ignores the will of the people...

[mbperrin]

79. So when Blue Cross Blue Shield denied heart surgery for my 78 year old

mother, that's okay with you because it's not denied treatment by the government?

Don't worry about hurting her feelings; she's been dead two decades now.

[twitomy]

83. No its not ok

I dont want a new public system ultimately doing the same bullshit as done to your grandmother.

I am afraid of the unintended consequences: Not enough money to go around, and the nasty shit

that might happen as a result.

[Canuckistanian]

51. Then adopt the Canadian system

Our government single-payer system does not exclude ANYONE. The doctors decide what care you need (wow, what a concept), then the government pays the doctor or hospital for your care.

There is no such thing as "denying coverage" There is no "rationing". There are no "bureaucrats" to accept or deny ANYTHING.

You get the health care you NEED, and the government PAYS FOR IT. It's really a simple concept.

[twitomy]

53. Thats swell...

But we are not talking about adopting the Canadian system, but rather making Medicare for all.
I havent heard of anything in the bill by Kucinich that does what you are talking about, which
I agree should be the way to go. So I am worried we are just going to go from a privatly financed hell to a publicly finanaced hell. If we are going to apply Medicare reimbursements for all patients as they are now, things are going to go to hell fast as Medicare reiumbursments suck. I know, as I have several family members in the helath care business. Remember the devil is in the details.

[Canuckistanian]

56. Nothing's written in stone yet

Single-payer is the only option that makes sense. Even if they DO expand Medicare, people will continue to be screwed.
And the desire for single-payer will STILL be there.

I'd say it's almost inevitable.

But one thing's for sure. It ain't happening THIS year.

[twitomy]

57. If Medicare becomes the standard for everyone..

It WILL then by definition be a single payer system as the payer is one single party--Medicare..
So I am confused by what you are saying. Seems to me your are thinking single payer means the government is delivering the healthcare. That is not what single-payer means. (BTW Canada has a single payer system..Public pays, but private delivery) But nonetheless I share your concern because nothing is written in stone..so the phrase "watch what you ask for, you just may get it" comes to mind.

I think a system where government pays for private delivery is the way to go. We need to preserve the profit motive of the providers. That spurs innovation. To insure the providers of health care make a FAIR profit,as they should,the UCR fees should be negotiated
on a regional basis between the government and a regional association representing the healthcare providers.

And because I beleive in "Freedom of Choice" in more ways they one, if a person wants to pay
cash themselves and providers only want to take cash, then thats fine with me. But if the UCR fees are done right, it would make sense for just about everyone to go the government pay way..

As for pharmaceuticals...I have a brother in that business...he says they try to maximize profit
on a new drug because it will go to generic once the pateent expires and then revenue plunges...How about make pharma's a deal: In exchange for a price control that gives a fair profit, extend the patent?

[Canuckistanian]

58. I see what you're saying

That profit MUST be built in somehow because it's the only way to provide innovation and motivation. But I maintain that profit is NOT the prime motivator in delivering good health care.

Most systems in the world bypass that profit-taking concept and do just fine. Doctors and hospitals can innovate, cut costs and STILL deliver world-class care. Because they realize that it's IMPORTANT. A healthy society is a good, productive society and doctors here realize that. They're a proud part of the community and are respected for that. Profit isn't the ONLY reason many get into health care.

And if you want to have private clinics for those who can afford it, then full speed ahead. As long as it doesn't interfere in any way with the basic service. But private clinics aren't the problem here.

Look, we're as much of a capitalist society here in Canada as you are. It's just that we've decided to take health care out of that world completely, the same as policing, civic planning and the military.

Because some things just don't work when there's a profit to be made. Sometimes, profit becomes more of an impediment than an advantage.

[twitomy]

59. I respectfully disagree somewhat..

Sure, your individuals giving the care, your charity hospitals, etc, are motivated more by giving care than making profit. But few if any will do it for nothing. My wife is an RN. She loves her work but sure as hell doesnt like taking a pay cut. I tell her you couldnt pay me enough to do what she does.

But why would GE try to design the latest CRT machines if money cant be made on it?

Why would any medical technology company invest in R&D if their customers (hospitals/doctors)
cant make a profit and plow that money into these new technologies?

[Canuckistanian]

60. Nobody does it for nothing

Our doctors are paid well. Our nurses too. Some think our system pays them too much. But we don't quibble. And there are NO doctors or nurses agitating for another system.

The point is, if you want to make a million dollars a years here, don't go into medicine. You'll make close to that, but you won't become a multi-millionaire. Our attitude is, if you want to be rich, go into business. Health care is not for wealth seekers. It's just a philosophical difference between our two countries, I guess.

And medical devices are a whole other story. It's accepted that high-tech equipment costs money. So, we spend the money.
And it's a BIG part of our health care costs. We realize it's impossible to function without it.

But we have an advantage there as well. By banding together, provinces can negotiate better prices for medical equipment. Bigger volumes mean better prices, right? It's the same principle we use when we buy drugs. We negotiate lower prices because we have the volume. It's the Walmart model - and it works.

But it can only happen because we have the power of the government.

[twitomy]

63. Cant really argue with what your saying...NT

[Canuckistanian]

65. I'm sure you'll think of something later on

In the meantime, I'll be around.

Good conversation.

:hi:

[twitomy]

68. Perhaps..

Nice talkin to you too..

[ProudDad]

76. Not True!

"That profit MUST be built in somehow because it's the only way to provide innovation and motivation."

This is a Randyan, libertarian myth that continues to be perpetrated on the public to excuse the rape and pillage of the many by the few.

The truth is that most real innovators do it because there's a satisfaction in scientific inquiry, research and discovery.

Money is the least effective motivator of creativity and innovation...

Check it out!

Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991

Especially Chapter 6..."Windows 98 in 1997 -- It is wrong to "borrow" ideas?" which contains a brilliant discussion of this very subject.

By a capitalist economist...

[twitomy]

81. So all our great modern inventions were all created for

altruistic reasons?

Edison didnt want to make a buck?

Bell didnt want to make a buck?

Marconi didnt want to make a buck?

Eli Whitney didnt want to make a buck?

Tesla didnt want to make a buck? (He famously turned down royalties becasue he felt his ideas in the pipeline would make him much more $$ (bad call))

Sure passion for ones work gives the ambition, but few do it and give it away from the goodness of their hearts...

If this was the case, Marxism would have been a smashing sucesss..

And I'm no Marxist.

I have my own sideline business..I do it becasue I love it, but I wont do it if I cant make a profit.

[earcandle]

62. Medicare currenlty reimburses doctors at a relatively high rate, at least in California.

[ProudDad]

74. We're trying like hell!

HR676 - the "United States National Health Care Act" does pretty much what the Canadian system does.

[twitomy]

82. Well if thats the case, then I'm all for it.!!

From what I have read here, it sounds like the Canadian system strikes a good balance of public good with private enterprise...

[avaistheone1]

84. It's essentially Medicare for everyone. I strongly support it and so do most Americans.

[Politicalboi]

29. Just in time for the

Freeper Revolution LOL! Wouldn't that be the cat's meow if on the same week they plan another tea party, and they pass a health care bill run by the government. :rofl: More tea please.

[jsamuel]

5. So pass a health plan NOW or NEVER!

Um, ok, but where is the issue advocacy?

This isn't simply pass or fail, but what will be in the bill. Unless one is only concerned with how it appears for him.

[w4rma]

7. As long as it has a viable public option. (nt)

[Oregone]

11. Viable, as in private insurance remains viable? :)

[LaPera]

8. Insurance companies & republicans are doing everything possible-spend any amount to make it "NEVER"!

NEVER - FOREVER! Spend any amount of money now, not to make sure it never happens and it'll be the best investment the insurance companies will ever make - trillions of dollars in the future for them by spending to defeating any form of Universal Health Care.

Too much profit insurance companies would lose from our tax dollars if Universal Health Care passed.

[dflprincess]

43. There's a lot of so called Democrats doing their best to protect the insurance companies as well

(i.e. Baucus). It appears that opposing and actual reform in the health care delivery system it the only truly bipartisan thing going on in D.C.

[Abq_Sarah]

67. This was the first election cycle that I can remember

Where the "health industry" gave more money to us than to repubs. How many congressmen and senators are willing to tell their donors to go screw themselves?

[NV Whino]

10. Now or never

Anyone taking bets on which it will be?

[sutz12]

13. Love the urgency...hate the "us v them" tone of the rhetoric.

:shrug:

I'm with the above comments. If there is no real public funded option, it is not reform.

[DCKit]

14. And if we don't do it RIGHT NOW, what? Will the Taliban attack U.S.?

Jeebus, shades of BushCo* much?

If they pass mandatory, corporate based health care, the only thing they'll prove is who they really work for.

[kath]

17. I'm afraid that we already know who they really work for, sadly.

:-(

(but I would love for them to show otherwise...)

[dflprincess]

44. The urgency is designed to make us think they really care about it

and once they slam some half-assed bill through they'll point to it and tell us to STFU because they've already passed a healh "care reform" bill. Meanwhile the insurance companies will be building more money bins (ala Scrooge McDuck) to store their growing profits. The only thing this might cost them is a little more in campaign bribes.

[avaistheone1]

85. Not allowing single-payer a seat at the table told me they are not serious about health care reform.

Then arresting the single-payer doctor and nurse advocates who appeared at the Senate cemented that in my consciousness.

[fascisthunter]

15. like forced private healthcare

all the while making it appear to be impossible to implement Universal.

[chaska]

16. Never is the better option. Harry and Louise have already killed anything worthwhile.

Once we overthrow the corporate government, then we can get meaningful reform. Not until, unfortunately.

[Mithreal]

18. Did Obama really say "now or never"?

I can't help but think we are gonna get some good legislation without the most important ingredients just like limiting usury in the credit cardholder's bill of rights.

[Zhade]

19. Oh, so this is him saying it won't happen then. Figures.

Just going to wind up another broken promise.

[earcandle]

20. HR 676 is where it is at, Obama. No more work to be done. Just vote it in.

[demo dutch]

22. The mere fact that congress would even consider delaying is unbelievable and unacceptable

[ThirdWorldJohn]

24. "I will not rest until the dream of health care is achieved for everyone in America."

Obama made that statement and you can see the video here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/organizingforhealthcare?source=issue_page

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. If it's a Massachusetts-style "everyone must buy private insurance" deal

I will actively work against it.

That is worse than no reform at all.

[bamacrat]

26. I dont understand people being against a public option.

Like Big O said, if you are happy with your healthcare, keep it. Makes sense to have atleast one option that will be regulated and national.

[Mithreal]

31. Embrace fear and greed and you will understand the opposition. nt

[NorthCarolina]

28. Translation: forget about that single payer nonsense

because it isn't going to happen, so take what we're prepared to give you now or forget about anything ever being offered again. BOO!!!

[ddiver]

35. I hope Obama keeps his 5 day public review promise on this. Let the people and the elected read it.

I cannot believe anything is sooo urgent that the bill can't be read before being voted upon. No budget, bailout, health care or law is that urgent. Sudden national security issues are the Presidents responsibility and at times may need urgent response, other issues will certainly survive a week or 2 of review.

I have heard to much use of the "too large to fail" and "must act now" mantras lately.

[amandabeech]

54. Those mantras have been in style for a few years.

They're getting a little shop-worn, IMHO.

[SharonRB]

36. I was on that call today and it cut off after the first couple of minutes

I never got to hear anything.

[No Elephants]

39. Never? And I know this is true how exactly? For that matter, how does Obama know it's true?

[olegramps]

40. What has Obama given us in the realm of real reform.

He has passed some executive decisions that really amount to a window dressing and without funding are just bull crap. Why not tackle the really hard issues. Yeah, we all know that those are the real issues that we really expected him to challenge the Republicans upon. Are you disappointed? I am.

[healthcare guy]

45. I don't get it

Why all the hold ups? To me this seems a basic right in a developed country, we should have the right to easy health care access and to be healthy.

Here's a interesting healthcare debate clip from 2008 that speaks to some of the questions others where having in the comments above. (Not sure how John Stossel got on that panel)

[ProudDad]

46. Welllllll, maybe, maybe not

This is a great time. If he doesn't back a workable plan, it will be postponed again.

Right now we've got the best system that the "free market" can give us. Pretty fucked up, eh?

If we don't get single-payer, if the health insurance mafia and big pharma aren't completely regulated and taken out of any decision making position and prices and fees STRICTLY CONTROLLED -- what we get will continue to fail...more experiments with "free market" health care.

So far, Obama's "plan" is nothing more than generic, ephemeral "desires". I haven't seen an actual plan from him. This may be as it must be since he can't introduce legislation.

The only PLANS in the Congress are HR.676 and SB.703 -- Single Payer for All. They are still the only "plans", "ideas" or "concepts" currently being floated in Congress that would give us the major requirements of a workable health care system:

Uniform standards for Universal Health Care

1) Insurance companies (if any) must accept everyone and cannot make a profit on basic insurance
2) Everyone is mandated to buy insurance and the government pays the premium for the poor
3) Doctors and hospitals (and drug companies) must accept one standard set of fixed prices!

That's what the entire CIVILIZED world has -- too bad it's "off the table" in USAmerica...

HR676/S703 -- An improved Medicare for All!!!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02p101&continuous=1

[Amonester]

66. In Canada, nobody is mandated to buy insurance.

The only thing to pay for is the photogragh on the card once the previous card has expired, and a post-office stamp to send the form to the government.

That's it, and that's all.

[ProudDad]

77. That's because

Canadians have decided that they are a community rather than a loose collection of freebooters and pirates when it comes to Health Care.

Canadians have decided that Health Care is a right available to each resident not a privilege to be withheld from the unlucky and least affluent.

Canadians have decided to TAX themselves proportionately to ability to pay in order to finance their single-payer system of universal health care.

Good on ya'!

We're trying like hell...

HR676 - The "United States National Health Care Act"

[OneBlueSky]

52. if they pass what they're talking about, we'll be right back to square one . . .

wihin a year or two at most . . . what they're doing is building on a broken system, and that's not going to solve anything . . . they need to scrap the broken system and devise a new one -- something along the lines of universal, single-payer coverage, say . . .

it's now or never? . . . not hardly . . . not with what's going to end up on your desk, Mr. President . . .

[4_TN_TITANS]

55. More Bush now-or-else tactics

to get us to agree to a much less than perfect plan. Saddam / mushroom clouds, anyone?

[gtar100]

69. What a stupid thing to say. So he's going to give up in 2010?

We have an entrenched problem - seriously huge problem with insurance companies. Now all they need to do is stall things until 2010 - 7 months away.

Maybe the sense of urgency will help. But once again I'm left with wondering if Obama is just another corporatist or if he's got a hidden political strategy for winning. I don't trust either one. And I have absolutely no confidence in the insurance industry to do the right thing. I expect them to stall, throw a bunch of money at senators, and ride out the storm. So who is he to say "WE" will give up?

[knixphan]

70. 'Life, liberty, etc...'

LIFE is a right.

Folded into that inalienable right is the 'Right to not die because you can't afford what the for-profit insurance wants you to pay out'.

It's not a market good. It's a human right.

HR676.

[Zavulon]

75. "This year or never" is bullshit.

Obama is going to have two terms, and the idea that 2009 is the only window is absurd. I'm surprised that he's pulling this - naturally, the Repugs in my office are laughing about it, but even the Democrats in my office are shaking their heads. My girlfriend, who is more liberal than I am, heard Obama's words and used the same word I used in my subject line.

President Obama, I want this done RIGHT, not FAST. Fast means sloppy. Please stop with the scare tactics and stop trying to rush a bill that's going to be responsible for over 300 million people. "This year or never" is a steaming pantload, and please stop thinking we're stupid enough to buy into it.

[ProudDad]

78. You're right

The Democrat's owner's "plan" is a ploy to try to get us to swallow an inadequate "compromise" that's bound to fail by leaving the insurance corporate mafia and Big Pharma in charge.