Americans WOULD Support National HealthCare

[Merrill]

Most Support U.S. Guarantee of Health Care


By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
Published: March 2, 2007
A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html?ex=1173589200&en=46444db95848ddd2&ei=5070&emc=eta1

=============================================

Our Mission: Single-Payer National Health Insurance

Greg Silver, MD (Fl.)
The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 46 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment though a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.

http://www.pnhp.org/

[annabanana]

1. When the NYTs says . . "guaranteed health insurance"

I cringe because I think that the insurance industry is probably the biggest single roadblock (along with the pharmaceutical industry) to "guaranteed healthcare".

I think that they will deliberately try to blur the two in order to protect the idea that "health care" should produce profits at the expense of health care.

[talkinghead]

2. Too bad Article I Section 8 doesn't

[depakid]

3. ???

Somehow I gather that you know little in general about what's in Article 1 Section 8, and understand even less in particular about commerce clause jurisprudence....

That could be summed up like this:

"What Congress giveth to the insurance industry (e.g., ERISA) Congress can taketh away.

[talkinghead]

5. I think I understand it fairly well.

Both are pretty straight forward in my opinion.

[depakid]

7. So, how would it affect any power to enact a single payer plan?

Care to elaborate?

(Feel free to cite cases).

[talkinghead]

8. Well...

Since it doesn't say "Congress shall enact single-payer health care plans," and since such an amendment has not been ratified, I guess it would affect it by prohibiting it.

[depakid]

9. That's not what the cases say

There's no need for a Constitutional Amendment... if there were, don't you think there might be a little problem with Medicare?

[talkinghead]

10. There is a huge problem with medicare.

[depakid]

11. Care to elaborate?

I can smell libertarian gobbly goop a mile away....

[talkinghead]

12. Well, your senses have prevailed once again...

[AnOhioan]

4. While the Constitution does not specifically permit...

nationalized healthcare, it does not prohibit it either. The strawman burns again.

[talkinghead]

6. Actually...

The powers of government are limited to what is stated in the Constitution. This is the meaning behind enumerated powers and is reaffirmed with the 10th Amendment. Your argument would apply to our rights, which are affirmed by the 9th Amendment. Just because a right is not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean we don't possess it, i.e. the right to privacy.

[Merrill]

13. Millions Support National Health Insurance

Millions of AFL-CIO Members Support Universal, Single-Payer
Health
Insurance


> Millions of AFL-CIO Members Support
> Universal, Single-Payer Health Insurance
>
> By Harry Kelber
>
> When the AFL-CIO Executive Council meets March 6-8 in Las Vegas, it
will
> be deciding what to do about the nation's most important domestic
problem,
> health insurance for all Americans. It should recognize the wishes of
> millions of union members and endorse and campaign for the United
States
> National Health Insurance Act (H.R. 676)) that would establish a
> single-payer health insurance system with guaranteed coverage for all
> Americans.
>
> The Council will surely be impressed by the grass-roots,
extraordinary
> support for H.R. 676. Union members in 40 states, represented by 239
labor
> organizations that include four international unions, 17 state
> federations, 63 central labor councils and scores of local unions,
favor
> the single-payer measure, which eliminates profiteering by insurance
> companies, pharmaceutical companies and HMOs.
>
> H.R. 676 would create a publicly-financed, privately-delivered health
care
> system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding
it and
> improving it for all U.S. residents. The goal of the legislation is
to
> ensure that all Americans, regardless of employment, income or health
care
> status, will have a legal guarantee for access to the highest quality
and
> cost effective health care services.
>
> The four AFL-CIO international unions that have officially endorsed
H.R.
> 676 are: United Auto Workers, International Longshore Workers Union,
> United Association of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, and the National
> Association of Letter Carriers. In addition, there are many members
in
> virtually every international union who support the bill.
>
> The 17 state federations that have signed on for H.R. 676 (originally
> introduced by Rep. John Conyers, a pro-labor congressman from
Michigan)
> are: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri,
North
> Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota,
> Vermont, Washington State, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
>
> AFL-CIO Can Reclaim Image as Workers' Champion
>
> The Council's endorsement would put the single-payer plan in the
forefront
> of the national debate about how to reform the health care system. It
> would make organized labor a principal player in the debate, giving
new
> hope to the 47 million Americans that have no health care coverage
and the
> millions who are being exploited by insurance and drug companies.
>
> An AFL-CIO campaign for H.R. 676 would receive an immediate and
> enthusiastic response from tens of thousands of union members across
the
> country, who would gladly volunteer for a cause that means so much
for
> working families. The "talking points" for H.R. 676. are numerous and
> persuasive: Under single-payer, everyone is guaranteed choice of
> physician, as well as comprehensive and uniform coverage. Whether
you're
> rich or poor, you get the same level of treatment.
>
> Even if you are unemployed or lose or change your job, your health
> coverage goes with you. It ends the insurance companies' interference
with
> care. There is no denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions
or
> cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems.
>
> The amount of money that single-payer can save will be enormous.
Insurance
> agencies and drug companies are notorious for their high
administrative
> costs, exorbitant executive salaries, and profits for the
stockholders.
> And perhaps best of all, the single-payer system doesn't have to
start
> from scratch. It builds on Medicare, which has served millions of
> Americans for four decades.
>
> All of the current proposals on health care, including President
Bush's,
> rely on "market forces," allowing the for-profit companies to
continue
> their exploitive control of an industry that serves a vital human
need.
>
> By endorsing H.R. 676 and waging a full-scale campaign for its
passage,
> the AFL-CIO can regain the respectful attention it once had in
Washington
> and across the country. It could probably serve as a boost for the
> Employee Free Choice Act.
>
> The Executive Council's decision on national health insurance may be
as
> important as any it has made in years. Let's hope it is the right
one.
>
> Our two weekly columns and their archives (LaborTalk and The World of
> Labor) can be viewed and downloaded at our website:
> http://www.laboreducator.org.
>
> ____________________________________
>
> The above article of interest to union members is distributed by:
>
> All Unions Committee For Single Payer Health Care--HR 676
> c/o Nurses Professional Organization (NPO)
> 1169 Eastern Pkway, Suite 2218
> Louisville, KY 40217
> [phone]
> email: [e-mail]
> 3/2/07