Helen Thomas: Obama should back "single payer" health care

[jefferson_dem]

Obama should back "single payer" health care

Americans can be thankful for two humanitarian presidents whose legacies stand as emblems of caring values that enrich us as a nation.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt won passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare legislation in 1965.

Social Security and Medicare work beautifully and provide security and medical care to millions of American families, especially now in hard economic times.

Imagine what America would be without.

President Obama should follow the formula of his two predecessors and support a "single payer'' health plan, assuring universal health care in this country

Usually, the single payer is a government agency that provides one-stop health coverage. In contrast, the American system of paying for health care is a chaotic wasteful porridge of health providers, private insurance plans with wide variations in coverage, deductibles, co-pays, etc.

The best way for the U.S. to move toward a single payer system would be to expand Medicare for everyone -- and why not? It won't be free -- everyone would have to kick in.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs recently came up with several lame excuses about why a single payer system was not acceptable to the Obama administration.

<SNIP>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=39698

[Thrill]

1. I doubt Single Payer would even get out of committee with Max Baucus on it

[Captain Hilts]

5. Make him say 'no' on record. nt

[Thrill]

6. I believe he already has and been saying it for yrs now

[AtomicKitten]

10. I'm stunned at how up-front some Dems have been on protecting corporate interests.

It's rather shocking to me to hear Democrats talk about not wanting the private sector to be impacted adversely by public heathcare.

[avaistheone1]

16. They think the public is stupid.

[harun]

17. Their constituents are literally screaming at them to go one way and they still towe

the line of the Corporate Lobbyist's and go the opposite direction.

[leftstreet]

12. With citizens backing Obama on this, Barfus could go f**k himself!

All Obama would have to do is say the word and he'd have the support of the citizens.

[DatManFromNawlins]

43. That is PLENTY naive

If it doesn't get out of committee, it doesn't matter if Obama does handstands, kisses babies, and roots for your favorite football team, it's STILL a dead issue.

[DrToast]

2. Would health care reform be easier/better after 2010?

If we pick up more Senate seats, which it looks like we will, would it be worth waiting until then?

If we're going to get some bullshit, half-assed reform, I wonder if it's better to wait.

[Abq_Sarah]

28. I suspect it would be more difficult after 2010

Because of the size of the deficit. that's going to be hammered going into 2010, particularly if the economy remains in a recession.

[Diamonique]

3. I don't see much "reform" without single-payer. nt

[snowdays]

30. Either do I. He is just fluffing around the edges of our current non-system

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabasco]

7. HELEN 2012 !!

Okay, 2016.

[Vidar]

8. Right as always, Helen!

[avaistheone1]

9. She is the best and brightest!

I love Helen.

[snowdays]

15. She is right about this also...Pres. Obama

is leaving it to congress. He does not want a fight and will stay above the fray. He will not provide leadership on this issue. But on the other hand he is --------leading already by omission of single payer!!!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=39698



.......There are some 47 million people without health insurance -- and thousands more are losing their health benefits with their jobs.

Gibbs said the president "looks forward to working with Congress to find a workable solution that can get through Congress.''

That may be the bottom line, the part about getting through Congress. Obama does not want to pick fights with Congress, where there are many Democrats as well as Republicans who oppose any kind of single payer program.

Obama is leaving it to Congress to design the specifics of a health reform program that he hopes will produce universal health coverage.

Well, Congress should take him up on that. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and other House members are sponsoring H.R. 676 that would create a single payer health plan in the U.S.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has sponsored similar legislation in the Senate (S.2031).

[Sunnyshine]

11. I love Helen!

KnR for her proudly supporting SP. She is a very wise woman. President Obama and Congress should follow her advice on this.:think:

[Vinca]

13. As usual, Helen is right.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Without non profit health care

there is no reform at all. If this is just about forcing everybody to pay a for profit premium, it is just a marketing tool, not reform. And if they do that, Democrats will begin to lose seats at an alarming rate.

[harun]

18. We need to see a vote on H.R. 676 in the House. We need to demand that happens.

We will know who to support and who to destroy that way.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

19. Good for Helen.. I agree that we need single payer healthcare!

Now is the time.

[Phx_Dem]

20. I can't understand why anyone wwould back single-payer over a

"public option," health care plan. If your current provider is too expensive or not covering what you need, switch to the public plan. The private insurance companies would be forced to offer compeitive prices and better coverage or go out of business. That's pretty simple.

Choice is always better than no choice. And I don't see how shutting down all the health insurance companies and putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work without first giving them the option to lower their prices and improve care is a good thing.

I have yet to here a winnable argument supporting single-payer health care. And that includes the "the only way we can afford it is for everyone to buy in" bullshit.

[tucsonlib]

31. Re: "I have yet to here (sic) a winnable argument supporting single-payer health care."

Okay. I'll give you several "winnable" arguments. But first, let me ask you something: What if we had a health care system that allowed you to choose any doctor and any hospital you wished, including specialists? (You wouldn't need to first get "referred".) medical procedures and treatment options would be decided by you and your physician. Neither the government nor some insurance company could deny you treatment, and no approval would be necessary before you are treated. EVERYTHING would be covered - no co-pays, no deductibles and no need to buy some "insurance supplemental policy". Most of your prescription drugs would be free, and those that weren't would only cost you a few dollars. This system would also cover your dental and long-term care expenses. And oh, I forgot to mention, this health care system would cover each and every American citizen.

So, what do you think? Okay, I know what you're thinking - "Sounds wonderful. But you're living in a fantasy world. For starters, such a system would be prohibitively expensive."

But what if I told you that every advanced nation on Earth (except the U.S.A.) already has in place a health care system pretty much like the one I described? Sure, their systems may not be perfect (what system is?) but don't believe the propaganda about substandard care or long waits. Ask the man or woman on the street! I can tell you that not only are my Canadian, British and Swedish friends satisfied with the health care they receive, but they find it unbelievable that in America - supposedly the wealthiest and most generous country on the planet - some 50 million people have no medical coverage at all. And even those with insurance are still at risk of losing everything should they be stricken by catastrophic illness or injury.

So, if Sweden, say, can provide all their people health care, why can't we? Don't we bill ourselves as the greatest, richest, most free country of them all?
Want to know the excuse I hear most often? Goes like this: "Well, those are teeny, tiny countries with populations that are so much smaller than ours. It's easy for them to cover everybody, but a system like that couldn't work here - we're so much bigger, and we have so many more people!"

Does this make any sense to you? Apparently it somehow does to them.


Okay, so let's get to those winnable arguments. You make some excellent points in your comments. You seem to favor giving everyone a choice - go with the private, for-profit insurance companies, or opt for a public plan - like Medicare. Sounds pretty good to me. So why is the insurance industry so vehemently opposed to this idea that they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to keep the public plan option out of any health care legislation? They admit that it's because a public plan would represent "unfair competition". They know that they could never compete with such a plan, and that eventually they would go out of business.

It really gets down to a fundamental question that is seldom asked: What, axactly, do health insurance companies do? They'd like us to believe that, well, they provide people with health care, of course! But of course, that's baloney. DOCTORS, and NURSES, and HOSPITALS provide people with health care. So again, what do they DO? What purpose do they serve? And the truth is, they're a business. Their purpose is to make a profit. They are corporations, and as such are required BY LAW to make profit for their investors their top priority. And how do you make a profit? By taking in more money than you pay out in
claims. Insurance companies aren't in business to provide you with the best possible health care; they are, ironically enough, in business to limit, or even deny claims whenever and wherever they can.


There are so, so many reasons single-payer is the only sensible choice. We could talk about how much cheaper (yes, cheaper) it would be compared to our present system. We could talk about universal coverage as a national security issue. (The current flu pandemic scare is only one case in point.) Or how about making U.S. industry better able to compete with foreign competitors, who aren't saddled with having to pay for their workers' insurance?

But since I'm getting bleary-eyed, I'll just leave you with this: A profit-based health care system is morally and ethically indefensible. It's like if your local fire department told you that you have to pay up front or they'll just let your house burn...

But the bottom line? Providing every American with health coverage is simply the right thing to do. We're all in this together, after all....


:grouphug: :pals:

[snowdays]

33. very nice. thank you--Yes, it is the right thing to do.

[area51]

41. Great post.

I wish I could nominate it for the Greatest Page. :thumbsup:

100,000 dead in the U.S. each year due to lack of healthcare. And yet this number isn't high enough yet for bloodthirsty republinazis.

An FAQ on single-payer healthcare.

[Zavulon]

38. I'm with you, largely because

I don't think the federal government is up to the task. They can't even provide proper health care for the military, so there's no way I think it can handle the task for over 300 million people. There's going to be waste, incompetence, inefficiency, and once we go "single-payer" we'll never go back.

It's not as if Medicare works "beautifully," as Thomas says. Doctors are so sick of jumping through hoops to get reimbursed that a large number of them are no longer accepting Medicare patients. My doctor, for instance, won't see Medicare patients because, as he put it, the reimbursement pains are so extensive that "I'd rather quit my practice than go through that bullshit anymore." He's still got some reimbursements that have been waiting for months and he doesn't ever expect to get the money back.

The government can't handle it, period. And if "we all have to kick in," the government will raise the tax to surplus point, piss away the surplus and then tax us more. In the meantime, the government will start cutting out things that are covered originally, just as Canada does when their system is running short of cash. Eventually, we'll all be paying a shitload of money for nothing.

"Single-payer" is a comforting thought in theory, but it would be an absolute disaster in practice.

I read the diatribe in response to your post (the first response), and that doesn't change my mind, either. THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T HANDLE IT.

[slipslidingaway]

21. When and why did President Obama switch positions on this issue.

[marimour]

22. he hasnt. I dont think he was ever for single payer

at least not to my knowledge

[slipslidingaway]

23. Video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Not sure of the exact date, but this was in 2003. I know during the Presidential campaign he was not for SPHC, but I do not know why or when he changed positions.

[gblady]

32. a couple more clips

.... this one sounds like he thinks it would be too difficult...
and that it would take too long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wTDK-LwqE&NR=1

yet this one...shows how I think he is not living up to his promise...
tells how he will have everyone at the table...and all the people he mentioned
as being whom he would include in the discussion, are the people not let in...

for if they were let in, and it was open for all to see...as he promised,
the events of Tuesday would never have happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RagbVl29JiQ&feature=related

[slipslidingaway]

36. Thanks for the additional clips, it is frustrating that SP advocates

are not being invited to speak.

:(

[snowdays]

39. Obama has kicked the health 'reform' down the street--to Congress

but Emmanuel is in there.

[snowdays]

24. why? He knows many dems owe their souls to the Pharm and insurance industries-including

Baucus.

[slipslidingaway]

25. Sadly, I think you may be correct. n/t

[MasonJar]

26. Obama is no Roosevelt or Johnson! I am disappointed in him; he is

a conciliator. He will not stand tall. He will never put the effort into this that he put into the bank bailout and the stimulus package (the latter of which has now seen many of its best parts such as public transit watered down.) Obama is not a Progressive. I tried to tell DU that. You all constantly complain about Bill Clinton and the DLC. Obama is just as DLC as Clinton, more than Hillary.

[slipslidingaway]

29. There are a lot of high profile Dems telling us that people are not

in favor of SP, they compromise from the word go.

:(

[MasonJar]

27. I forgot! Kudos to Helen! You are the TOP!

[bdamomma]

34. Helen always on the side of the people.

[snowdays]

35. yes, always.

[Better Believe It]

37. K & R

[LWolf]

40. She's right. nt

[cornermouse]

42. World's Happiest Places

http://travel.yahoo.com/p-interests-27761674;_ylc=X3oDMTFzODRwOWZjBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEX3MDMjcxOTQ4MQRzZWMDZnAtdG9kYXltb2QEc2xrA2hhcHB5cGxhY2VzLTUtOS0wOQ--

....Did you notice they all have universal healthcare? I wonder if there's a connection....
:eyes:

One other thing. You couldn't possibly find a more family values policy than universal healthcare sans health insurance companies.

[snowdays]

44. When a person worries about their health, how can they be

happy and productive. Its simple logic.