The Democratic program in 7 points

[Mass]

So much for the MSM saying the Democrats have no program. We have already heard about what the Democrats stand for with Dean a few weeks ago. Here is what Kerry said today about what they will do if they win in 06.

Democrats have a lot of good ideas and it is time for us to make sure they can apply it in DC.

Good news also. I dont have Dean's program here, but as far as I remember, they are about the same. So no disconnect either between the Democrats.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/03/11/sen_john_kerry_returns_to_new_hampshire/

"Let me tell you how Democrats will lead if you give us the chance in 2006," he said in remarks prepared for a fundraising dinner for Nashua and Hillsborough County Democrats. "Here's what we'll do: Tell the truth. Find Osama bin Laden and secure our ports. Stop subsidizing big oil and start investing in energy alternatives. Make access to affordable health care a right and not a privilege. Fight for American jobs that restore the American dream. Obey the law and protect our civil rights. Fire incompetents and restore competence and integrity to Washington."

[johnaries]

1. Spoiler! I'm waiting to hear this speech on C-Span right now.

So far just opening comments and watching them eat.

OMFG! They're showing a BUSHIT speech while we're waiting...MY EYES! MY EYES!

[Mass]

2. I did not even realize it was the same speech.

Listening to Bush as well - Painful.

Dean now. A lot better.

[johnaries]

6. Is that the Dean speech you were talking about? n/t

[Mass]

7. No. It is something he said on the Today Show a few weeks ago

when Kathie Couric asked him to tell what the Democrats stand in 5 points.

[johnaries]

12. Still a great message. Go, Howard! n/t

[MuseRider]

3. I wish he would add one more.

Get the fuck out of Iraq. Add that one and I would say this is a pretty good list. It is a good start.

[Blue_Tires]

64. thank you!

[napi21]

4. Well, here's my suggestion for how to get their message PUBLIC!

Put the promises in form of a list!

You could actually read that statement as 10 separate commitments. They should be labeled as that.

However, I have a bit of a problem with two of them. "Find Osama bin Laden" could be a problem. Many people have tried to do that a failed! The longer time goes on, the more difficult that's going to be. I strongly suggest the Dems NOT make any promises they can't keep!!!! There's no way to be sure of this one!

The second one I have a problem with is "Fire imcompetents". I don't disagree with the idea, but as far as I know, the Congress doesn't have to power to fire any of the people who Shrub put in charge of the various agencies and are causing all the problems. ie: Brownie, Chertoff, Bolton, etc. AS far as I know, they all "serve at the pleasure of the President!" I can see that statement of firing all the incompetents as part of a Pres. campaign promise, but not part of the 06 commitments.

[johnaries]

8. Great minds! I made an earlier suggestion for "bullet points"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=635007&mesg_id=635007

That's where the Repukes have beaten us. KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!).

[napi21]

16. High Five to you too, johnaries! I don't know your profession, but

I've been an accountant for 40+ years. You learn to put things in very plain and simple terms, or nobody understands you!!!!!!

Why in the world wouldn't the Dem leaders not recognize that bullet points have much more impact than a string of words???????

[johnaries]

36. I'm in Tech Support, but I've also given presentations to the

company's Executive Committee. Short, step by step concise statements works best for both.

[napi21]

38. HAH! And we're both dealing with very educated people huh?

The dumb politicians are dealing with EVERYBODY! Smart, dumb, educated, dropouts, and everyone in between!

I agree. The KISS always works best for everyone!

[FatDave]

21. Finding Osama

"Find Osama bin Laden" could be a problem. Many people have tried to do that a failed!

I'm not sure they tried too hard though. In fact some would say they tried halfheartedly, but still eventually got him cornered, then stood by and watched while he escaped. Some would say that.

Honestly, I think if we were seriously dedicated to finding the guy, we would. The guy needs dialysis how often?

[napi21]

39. I don't disagree with you, but I'm a firm believer in

"Never make a promise you aren't positive you can keep!" Too many ifs and maybes here.

[dcfirefighter]

5. I've never considered healthcare a 'right'.

If it is a 'right' a person can demand it, and someone else must provide it. This implies that the doctors, nurses, etc. individual rights are subordinate to the person demanding rights.

I think a more appropriate goal would be to make healthcare accessible and affordable to all. The end result is about the same, except one method takes self-ownership from those providing a service, and the other gives independence and empowerment to those needing a service.

[sandnsea]

9. Are you really a firefighter?

Curious.

[dcfirefighter]

11. Yes. Don't misunderstand my sentiment

It's a semantic but important difference. In a fair and just world, people would always get the healthcare they need. But not because it's their right, but rather 1) they are able to purchase it or 2) the rest of us couldn't stand living in a world where people went without such important needs.

But it's not a 'right' in my mind.

[sandnsea]

13. Is being saved from a burning building a right?

Or a privilege?

[dcfirefighter]

19. It's a privilege

No question.

If you had been rescued from your burning home, you were privileged to live in a community that provided adequate fire service.

If you live in a community that provides fire protection you probably have a 'right' to have the fire department respond to your house when called. You do not have the 'right' to demand that they risk life & limb to get you out. Whether they do or not will depend on your building codes, your distance from a fire station, and how advanced the fire is. It will depend largely on how many firefighters arrive with the first group. Mostly it will depend on the courage of the individuals getting you. That or raw luck.

[sandnsea]

24. Why do I have a "right" to have the fire department respond...

and save my life if it's reasonable to do so, but I don't have a right for a doctor to do the exact same thing???

[dcfirefighter]

37. If you're allowing someone else to define 'reasonable'...

then I have no argument.

But that's the sticking point for me. At what point do the would-be patient's demands become 'unreasonable'? If an abusive patient finds an acquiescent provider, how long do the rest of us have to pay?

If you continually call the fire department for false calls, you'll be fined, if not arrested.
If you continually call the fire department for real calls, you'll be arrested for arson, or at least you'll run out of things to burn.

If you're a hypochondriac, who determines which doctor you can see? Who determines how many prescriptions you can have?
If we take measures to prevent abuse, fraud, etc., how do we ensure that the legitimately sick get what they need?

Death is an unavoidable fact of life. As a person ages, it becomes more and more expensive to keep him alive. Eventually, in his last few days, it becomes incredibly expensive to keep him alive? Who determines how much we spend?

I fear that making healthcare a 'right', while being a popular idea, is really just a means of enriching healthcare providers (particularly the ones with special licenses, patents, and franchises) at the expense of tax payers. I think that there are means of ensuring that everyone gets healthcare without hiding the costs. Making healthcare 'Free' doesn't eliminate the cost, it just hides it, and makes someone other than the user pay.

[sandnsea]

42. Health insurance already considers all of that

You get caught scamming insurance, you get arrested and go to jail. If your insurance provider doesn't think your treatment is necessary, they refuse payment. You are already paying more than anybody else in the world for a health care system that metes out care now, and out and out denies care to many.

And I never said "free" anywhere, so don't even put that on me.

[dcfirefighter]

51. If you get caught scamming

the insurance companies are losing money, and have a financial incentive to find you and prosecute you.

You didn't say free, and I've agreed with most of your clarifications. I'm not trying to put anything on you.

There is an element in some financial transactions that causes them to expand to take all available money. Real estate is one of them: if people have more money, real estate prices will rise to take advantage of them. For most goods and services, this is not true: if people have more money, more producers enter the market to produce the goods and services, keeping prices relatively low. No one can enter the market with more land, to loosely paraphrase Will Rogers.

Healthcare has a similar effect, for slightly different reasons. In addition to being highly regulated - so that new providers cannot easily and quickly enter, it suffers from a problem with patents and the like. Whoever comes up with a new treatment, drug, or procedure can patent it. If it works, even a little bit better than the alternative, he can sell it for whatever it's worth -- how much is your life worth? So you have on one side, a monopoly patent right, and on the other, a highly INelastic demand (more life). A recipe for spiraling prices.

In addition to all the reasons you already know for America's high prices (overhead, insurance, etc.) this is a major factor. In single payer countries, the gov't can and does negotiate a better price than in ours; furthermore, they tend to regulate who can and when they get the latest miracle (0.5% better) cure.

My fear is that once you go single payer, you can never go back - not because it is absolutely the best system, but rather that once entrenched, their will be no getting rid of it (much like trying to get rid of $450B military budgets - there'll be too much money and power associated with it). Furthermore, who would vote against giving themselves more coverage? I fear that eventually we'd be working 3 months of every year just to pay for all the medications they say we'd need. It's too many eggs in one basket, if you will. I personally think that a Swiss system of universal coverage would work best for the US, but I'd rather see a patchwork of experiments, with each state, or even group of states, maintaining it's own universal healthcare plan. (Many European countries are smaller than some of our states; if you can find insurance for a 100,000 person company, you can find it for a 1,000,000 person state)

Unfortunately, the first step towards fixing the problem is probably a 3rd rail: insurance has to be decoupled from employment. The only way to do this is to eliminate the tax rebates companies get for providing insurance. (I don't know why they couldn't simply give a similar rebate / credit to individuals - probably because, at the low end, people pay very little income tax, and such a scheme would require a credit, rather than merely a rebate)

While * has scared many erstwhile Republicans from supporting him, quite a few of them understand the economics of Single Payer Health Insurance, and will vote against a Dem who supports it, especially if one of the more (supposedly) moderate republicans gets the nomination.

[sandnsea]

52. There are other options

Most countries have a public/private system, not just single payer. A basic health program is in place for everybody and it is administered by the government. Some countries pay for it with a tax percentage, others with monthly premiums. Beyond this though, there is also a private layer of health care and health insurance, and the health insurance is often offered through employment. In France, for example, half of surgeries and cancer treatments are done in private hospitals through employee health insurance coverage.

There are alot of options available, it isn't a choice between single payer and what we have now. Kerry's plan was to open federal employee insurance to everybody, including small business, and help pay for it with those tax credits you mention. Many states already have insurance available to low-income working families, it's on a sliding fee scale. In Oregon, various insurance companies have programs, you sign up with the one you want, and then the state calculates your premium based on your income. You pay the state, they pay the insurer. It doesn't cover everybody yet, they only take a certain number of families per year.

I understand what you're saying and you're the exact kind of person I point to when I tell people on the left that there isn't a majority who support "single payer free" health care. We have to educate people on the options available and the costs and rationing we already have.

And from my perspective, it's not fair that my taxes go to your health insurance but you don't see any reason for me to have a right to the same thing.

[dcfirefighter]

54. Fair Enough - but usually around here univesal hc = single payer

I believe the Swiss system works more or less like this:

You must purchase insurance
The insurance must comply with a framework of national regulations
The insurance must comply with specific local regulations
The insurer must accept everyone in the locality (state) who chooses them as insurer, and charge them more or less the same rate (varied for 'premium' services like optical, dental, private rooms, etc.)
The insurer MAY rebate premiums to those who don't use the service except for preventative medicine
If the premiums & copays are more than 10%? of income, the government will give a partial subsidy (call it a sliding scale).

Your taxes go to my compensation (that is, if you pay taxes in the District of Columbia). In exchange for my compensation, I agree to protect your life, property, and the environment. Part of my compensation, as negotiated by my bargaining unit, is health insurance.

You have exactly the same rights - you may find a job, work to keep it, and obtain health insurance. I'm not saying it's a great system, but to say that you pay for my insurance isn't quite genuine. You pay for fire protection; to get fire protection you have to have firefighters; to get firefighters, you have to have compensation, including insurance.

[sandnsea]

55. Right, you demand it

But don't support others who demand the same "compensation" you take for granted, often others who are union workers too, like my son. And, are you presuming I don't work, or what?

[dcfirefighter]

56. Demand away then

I don't take it for granted - I realize that's why I come to work. My and my union demanding from my employer is an entirely different proposition than you and others demanding that everybody take a share in paying for your healthcare.

I get healthcare from my employer for being an employee. It just so happens that my employer gets the money to pay for my healthcare through taxation.

You are asking me, and others, to set aside a portion of our paycheck to pay for your healthcare. Personally, I'd rather pay for your healthcare than, say, a portion of a $100M military aircraft that won't do the job it's supposed to do, but I don't have that choice. As a point of fact, I'd rather just keep what I earned, maybe save up for a house one day, ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU HAD A FAIR CHANCE TO EARN YOUR OWN WAY. I recognize that many of the laws and privileges granted by our government mean that not everybody who is willing to work can find a job, much less on that pays enough to keep the kids in food, a roof over head, the heat on, and hope beyond hope, the insurance paid up.

I fear the solution (that I thought) you were proposing as potentially uncontrollable; upon clarification, I don't have a problem with any of your solutions.

[sandnsea]

57. If we all share firefighting costs

Why can't we all share health care costs??? It's the exact same thing. Firefighting isn't just you and your benefits, it's the fire house, trucks, water system, chemicals, safety gear, I don't know what all. But it's a complete delivery system, just like health care. We all contribute. I don't understand why you can't see that the exact same philosophy can be applied to health care. They can get their salary through taxation, same as you do.

I really love how you capitalized "earn your own way", and how you didn't address union workers who don't have insurance or whether you think I don't work. Sounding a bit too much like a few police and firefighters who love their unions, but bitch about everybody else's, and vote republican.

[dcfirefighter]

59. Because it's a public good

A public good can be used by all with any one's use not taking away from other's ability to use. The classic example of a public good is a lighthouse: everyone can see it and avoid the rocks & shoals; one ship seeing it doesn't prevent another from seeing it as well.

A fire department's public good is preventing & responding to conflagrations; as well has having a ready group of persons trained, equipped, and prepared to go into harm's way for others. It's range is local - it could be considered a public good in a locality, but not on the national level. (For the record, FD costs are almost completely - 90%+ personnel costs in a career dept.)

Health care isn't a public good: If one person uses a doctor, I cannot use him at the same time; if someone occupies a hospital bed, I cannot occupy it at the same time, if someone swallows a pill, I cannot swallow it later.

I would allow that there IS a public good in ensuring that the care is available. Consider ambulances. Say that your town is small enough that one ambulance could physically respond quickly to any point in the town. Having the ability to have an emergency call answered quickly is possibly a public good - however, as soon as the ambulance is actually called, it's now a private good - being used exclusively by one individual.

National Medical Public Goods include: the general body of medical knowledge; a program for licensing hospitals and providers; the FDA (for the most part); public health epidemic prevention; and the like.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with someone's need for health insurance; I'm disagreeing with considering it a right. If it's a right, it can be demanded, without compensation.

I don't currently like my Local
I haven't liked my international for some time
I don't vote Republican (thanks for the implicit accusation, though)
I think unions are a necessary evil - I'm not pro Labor, I'm pro Laborer.
A

[sandnsea]

60. Oh it is all the same thing

It's just as possible for firefighters to be called and have no one available for another fire as it is for doctors. Happens to wildland firefighters every year. What a lame excuse. Keeping a population healthy and preventing illnesses from spreading is just as much a public good as firefighting. It's certainly stupid to have people injured and unable to work and just leaving them that way, which happens all the time. In addition, if a person is literally dying, they do have a right to health care, without compensation on the spot, so that argument is nonsense too.

And you don't support your union?? Who do you think has been fighting for the benefits you've got and lobbying Washington for improved safety equipment and regulations??

Sheesh.

And you're still avoiding answering whether you think I work or not, or whether my son's union deserves the same benefits you've got.

[dcfirefighter]

62. We may just disagree

There is a portion of firefighting that isn't a public good, but a F.D.'s usage rates are typically fairly low. For the most part we are limited by geography, not by number of people covered, especially when only fire suppression is considered. EMS is another story altogether - EMS is less limited by geography and more limited by population.

Put another way, once you build 10 fire stations, it doesn't really matter whether you're covering 10,000 people or 1,000,000 people. Conversely, having 10 hospital beds might be appropriate for 10,000 people, but it would be entirely inadequate for 1,000,000 people.

Preventing illness from spreading IS a public good, I've already stated that. In fact the prevention of pandemic and epidimic diseases is quite patently a public good. Treating someone's arthritis isn't. That is a private good enjoyed by the arthrites sufferer.

A person doesn't even have to be dying, they merely have to have an emergency or be pregnant; they can then get healthcare from an emergency room. It's not a very efficient use of medical resources, but it's what we've got. In fact, this is one of the reasons I support Universal Healthcare - we, as a nation, even now, aren't monsters: we give healthcare to everyone. It's just that now, we have to wait for it to be an emergency. It would be more efficient if we had some means to allow the people who's only source of care is an emergency room or a free clinic better access to medical resources. In order for universal healthcare not be a ticket to long-term bureaucratic bloat, a portion of the immediate costs need to be passed on to the consumer. This is how my insurance works, this is how most people's insurance works.

I know first hand that many people will use 'free' (to them) healthcare inappropriately: they will use ambulances and emergency rooms for very minor illnesses - even though they have access to more appropriate care facilites. It's just slightly more convenient to call an ambulance and go to the emergency room than it is to ride the bus to the neighborhood clinic. If the person had to pay a copay for emergency visits and ambulance use, like most insured people do, the person would be likely to reserve 911 for real emergencies.

I support my union, I pay my dues, i've been a shop steward, and I've worked on contract negotiations. In my particular case, I think that our Local is pursuing the wrong strategies and has ceased to effectively represent the rank-and-file. Unfortunately, the executive board has consolidated power by courting the retired vote, and they may now freely represent the officers and retired persons over the rank-and-file without fear of losing their seats.

As for my international, I'm not impressed. The things they have fought for are only occasionally for the well being of regular firefighters; they are more often strictly to increase international membership (and dues), often at the expense of other, existing unions.

I don't care whether you work or not, it's irrelevant. I think you should have access to healthcare regardless. If you can work, and can't afford healthcare, you should be able to find a job. If you really can't work, then you should have some sort of health insurance assistance.

A union's ability to negotiate benefits is directly related to their utility to their employer, which is generally related to the difficulty of the job and the rareness of the skill set required. I don't know what your son does, so I don't know what his union 'deserves'. Again, I don't think healthcare and health insurance should be attatched to employment.

IOW, I don't think that healthcare is a basic human right. I just think that universal healthcare is the decent thing to do.

You can't go to McDonald's and demand your right to food; You can't go to the department store and demand your right to clothing; You can't go to the Realtor and demand your right to housing; You can't go to a hospital and demand your right to healthcare.

There are many and complex reasons, reasons entirely within our control, why employers aren't throwing wages and benefits at potential employees: largely because we so strongly favor ownership over labor. In the absence of correcting these things, we must have a social safety net: assistance for the necessities of life: water, food, clothing, shelter, medicine. I accept this, but do not think that make such assistance the standard, but rather leave it as the exception while striving to increase employment and wages.

[sandnsea]

63. Wow

Waiting for you to roll out the "welfare cadillacs" any minute now.

Just a couple things, people may still be able to get any services at an ER where you live, but where I live they are turning people away unless they are genuine life-threatening emergencies. They tell them to go to the clinic. Catch-22, the clinic doesn't have enough doctors so they often turn those same people away because there aren't any appointments available.

Health care is at the very core of living, along with food and water. It is a basic human right, that's why doctors take the hippocratic oath, why we have Good Samaritan laws, etc. There is no more reason for health care to have been set up as a private industry than for firefighting to have been set up as a public one. Like I said already, a sick person is as much a detriment to the public good as a burning building, either through the spread of disease or the inability to work. It's not just the decent thing to do, it's imperative for a fully functioning working society. And it isn't just for those who have the right "skill sets".

[dcfirefighter]

65. Again I disagree

And I'd appreciate if you stopped making personal attacks. Democratic Socialism isn't the only form of Progressivism.

I've agreed time after time that people should be able to get health care, and that an emergency room isn't the place to get it. A clinic without enough doctors is exactly why I don't like the idea of government provided health service. Without a price mechanism, there is no incentive to train more doctors - unless that is what the central plannign committee decrees. I want to make sure that everyone is a viable customer - not a citizen demanding a right.

Health care is NOT at the core of living: there are thousands of people living without it today, many who live their whole lives without it. Try doing that without water, food, or shelter. It is NOT a basic human right, it is a human NEED. NEEDS aren't RIGHTS. Rights are something YOU can do for YOURSELF. A RIGHT to TAKE is necessarily an abrogation of someone else's RIGHT not to be taken from. That is why medicine and medical care isn't a RIGHT. In order to excercise your right, you must exclude someone else from their right.

It is not society's place to provide for everyone's needs - it IS society's place to provide everyone with an opportunity to fulfill their needs. IF we provided this opportunity (we don't) we wouldn't have an obligation to provide people with theirn needs. BECAUSE we don't provide this opportunity, we DO have an obligation to provide for these needs. None of this makes these needs into rights.

A sick person is not a detriment to the public good like a burning building - a sick person is largely self limiting - he'll die or get better or stay sick.
A sick CONTAGIOUS person is a detriment to the public good - he should be cared for or quarantined, for the public good.
A non-working person isn't a detriment to the public good, he is a detriment to himself.

Just what is a fully functioning working society? It seems that you are making a circular argument: a fully functioning working society is a society that provides healthcare to everyone - therefore universal healthcare is a necessity of a fully funtioning working society.

[sandnsea]

66. Your posts shock me is all

First, the clinic without enough doctors is under the current private scheme. As are waiting lists for people WITH insurance, and every other horror story we hear about public health care. There is no evidence private health care meets needs any better than public systems; while there is evidence it does worse in many cases, and at a higher cost.

By your definition of needs and rights, firefighting, police, and even educators aren't rights either. People can live their whole life without any of it. Indeed, people don't NEED any of it until the day arrives, perhaps, when they're desperate for it. Just like health care. There is absolutely NO reason for health care to be in a different category. We do these things because we've come to the recognition that we are all better off when there is a continuity of community service available to EVERYBODY. Criminals who are allowed to run rampant among the poor, eventually attack the wealthy. Fires that might start in a slum, eventually spread to the whole town. Disease is exactly the same thing.

A fully functioning society.

Not to mention, in these days of global competition, it's economically stupid to burden our businesses with costs that are spread across the public in the countries we are competing with.

Republican economics don't work, they never have, they never will. You can take that as a personal attack if you want, but you are the one spouting the benefits of Republican economic policy.

[dcfirefighter]

67. My poor communications skills

have apparently left you with the impression that I think republican policies are good, and that the current system works.

I don't.

I merely think that it is wrong to consider somithing RIGHT if it is merely something you NEED.

For the species to survive, we NEED to procreate. I do not have the RIGHT to procreate, exercising that right of my own voliton would rightly be considered RAPE.

I do not consider Police, Fire, or Educators Rights, either. I think they are necessary and good, but not rights. They are or at least major portions of them are 'Public Goods' but not rights.

Because you apparently think I'm a republican, let me explain:

You have the RIGHT to think what you want, say what you think, defend yourself, etc. etc.
I think the most fundamental RIGHT is the RIGHT of self-ownership. This means you own yourself and your labor. You may enter into contracts, but no one may coerce you into giving them your labor or a share of your labor. Wage, Payroll, and income taxes violate this right. As do military drafts. In the absence of such taxes, labor would be worth much, much more - and the vast majority of people would be able to obtain what they NEED in a free marketplace.

The next most fundamental RIGHT is the common birthright of this planet. We violate this right by allowing a select few to 'own' portions of this earth, at the exclusion of others. We also let others despoil and pollute our commonwealth. There are practical benefits to assigning bits of this earth as property - HOWEVER - when we exclude others from the commons, we should compensate them fairly. A practical upshot of this would be to annually tax the value of natural resources 'owned' by individuals and corporations, and share that revenue through government goods and services (such as universal healthcare).

[sandnsea]

68. I think you're misguided

that's what I think. And I think you're touting Republican economic philosophy whether you recognize it as such or not.

Starting at the end, yes, we have allowed ownership of portions of this earth. BTW, many medicines come from that very earth. In any event, ownership in order to retain and control the fruits of ones labor has been deemed a good thing. For whites anyway as we have systematically denied that to other ethnic groups. We have moved far, far away from that simplistic economy however, there really isn't much in that philosophy that applies to the complicated entanglements of corporations and global economies and resources we have today. At some point in the last 20-30 years, we have moved far away from a purely product (fruits) oriented economy into an economy where money and corporations have value unto themselves and make up as much or more of the global wealth than the products traded.

The maintenance of that investor wealth, which is now critical to prevent global economic collapse, is also dependent on continuing downward pressure on corporate costs. Corporate costs being labor and benefits, among others. Therefore, no amount of reduction of taxes is going to improve the opportunity for labor to meet all its needs. Labor, (citizens, taxpayers, the voting public), will either join together to insist its needs are met through a consensus of what is a public good, as a basic right for continuing to supply that labor; or we end up serfs.

That is what makes health care a right. It is a public good, just like police, fire and education.

[dcfirefighter]

69. I think you're illogical

And defeatist. The very privilege and speculative value given to the corporations (for far longer than 20-30 years) is taken from the people. Rather than rectify this, you'd be happy if they just gave you a band-aid fix on your lack of healthcare.

You also fail to understand conventional economic definitions, without which, we cannot have a meaningful conversation.

Individual Healthcare and Health Insurance are, by definition, NOT public goods.
Healthcare is not yet a legal right.
Healthcare has never been a moral right: how can one person have a moral right to demand someone else's labor?

Despite my insistant disagreement with you on the nature of rights, and on the nature of public goods, I do agree that universal healthcare would be an expedient means of improving the US economy and standard of living. More important, I think it is the moral thing to do.

[depakid]

35. Here's what a right to healthcare looks like

It'd sure be nice IMO if the US had one like it:

European Union Constitution, Article II-95

Health care

Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical
treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human
health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and
activities.

[dcfirefighter]

40. That's not bad

Right to preventative healthcare and . . . under the conditions established by national laws and practices.

I'm absolutely fine with that.

I disagree with the notion that we can make healthcare 'free'.

I also disagree with the notion that people couldn't purchase their own health CARE. E.g. if I want my own dialysis machine, and I've got the means, then I should be able to purchase one, or at least hire someone with a license to operate my own personal one.

[johnaries]

10. You actually make a very good point.

It may not be an "inalienable right", but it is not right that the rich get better healthcare than the poor.

Beware the RW spin machine. Give them as little fodder as possible.

[dcfirefighter]

15. I'd even disagree with that, to a degree

It's crappy that people get inadequate healthcare, but suppose for a moment that someone came up with a surefire cure for cancer, but the procedure costed $100 Million dollars, and the labor of 100 physicians working for a year. Should this procedure be outlawed because only a few people could afford it, or should the country be bankrupted trying to pay for all the procedures?

Perhaps the physicians could be required to work for less. How many students would continue to become physicians?

For me, the crux isn't that the rich get better healthcare, it's that the poor get inadequate healthcare (and the healthcare they get is usually an inefficient use of scarce public healthcare dollars.)

For the record, I support universal healthcare - I just don't support single payer healthcare. I feel that controlling what would and wouldn't be covered, and for how much, is too sweet a pot to leave to the K street lobbyists. I prefer inclusive insurance rules coupled with insurance subsidies for low-income persons. I think the Swiss have it right, especially given the general culture of American business.

[flpoljunkie]

14. JK said "make access to affordable health care a right & not a privilege."

To me, this means every American ought to have access to affordable health care.--not just those who have access to health care through their employment or are eligible through Medicare.

I cannot argue with that. Every other industrialized country in the world provides access to healthcare for all their citizens. We, as the richest country in the world, should do no less.

[Renew Deal]

53. Healthcare is a right.

You can't buy or sell health care. If you are sick, you get treatment. If you need care, you get attention. End of story.

[emulatorloo]

17. kick and nominating n/t

[oscar111]

18. FREE HEALTH CARE, not "affordable"

no one should have to pay for getting sick.

the premiums idea... also dont take into account all of the possible other drains on one's income,

it would take an encyclopedia length book of regulations to do that.

BTW, all other forms of insurance should be in place , free , the moment of birth. Burglar? you are covered. Carwreck? Covered. Mugged? Covered. Carjacked? Covered.

in short, all crime victims reimbursed.

[oscar111]

20. more points.....

End the job shortage

End outsourcing to Mexico

All elections federally funded

End homelessness

Rollback all cuts to firefighters, cops, bridge repair, medical research, colleges, and hunger aid.

[sandnsea]

25. Nobody in the world has free health care

Everybody, the world over, pays for their health care through their taxes and/or a monthly premium plan. There's no such thing as FREE health care so stop saying there is.

[president4aday]

22. Nothing about Iraq.... that's why there's Nader, the Greens and

bu$h in the white house.

[sandnsea]

23. Yes there is, it's a 10 point plan

He specifically said "bring the troops home from a stable Iraq, as fast as possible".

I don't know how the media turned a 10 point plan into a 7 point plan, kind of baffling.

[president4aday]

28. "a stable Iraq". The joker in the deck. Same as bu$h's, "we'll stand

down when the the Iraqi's stand up."

There's less to Dean then we'ed like to believe.

[sandnsea]

29. No it isn't

Because he's already said that bringing the troops home is critical to getting to a stable Iraq. Completely different.

[Mass]

34. Because AP wrote the article from a "remarks as prepared for delivery"

and not from the speech that was delivered. As usual, Kerry has modified it after the speech was send to the reporters, and as often, for the better.

[sandnsea]

26. It's a 10 Point Plan

Thanks to Babylonsister

1. Obey law, protect civil rights.
2. Tell the truth.
3. Fire the incompetents.
4. Chase the moneylenders and changers from temple of democracy.
5. Bring our troops home!
6. Find OBL and protect ports.
7. Stop stabilizing big oil and blaming people. Commit to alternatives.
8. Make access to healthcare affordable as America's right.
9. Reduce deficit (conservative!) Respect work over wealth.
10. Fight for American jobs.

[ProSense]

31. Ten points all worth fighting for. n/t

[president4aday]

41. It's a 7 point plan. Same plan for Iraq as Bu$h's...

" A real plan for success in Iraq"

Here's the link.

http://tools.democracyforamerica.com/plan/slide11.php

Imagine how we'ed react if foreign political party had a "plan for success" in the US?

...while their nation's Army stands with their boot on our neck?


DEAN AIN'T IT.

[ProSense]

43. Kerry laid out 10 excellent points. Bush has no plan n/t

[leftofthedial]

27. so if they win, will they do Dean's program? or Kerry's program?

or Lieberman's program? or Reid's program? or Kennedy's program? or Clinton's program?

We can be all gaga over "our guy" whoever he or she is, but to the public, it looks more like they are running for President in 2008, not trying to save the country from the bush crime gang in 2006. They need to come together and issue one coherent statement of values and specific proposals.

[sandnsea]

30. What's the difference?

Because I hear them all saying the same thing. Why don't you like the Democrats having a unifying message???

[leftofthedial]

32. I don't hear a unified message.

I'm on all their mailing lists. I get several emails a day outlining programs. I don't disagree with what Dean or Kerry say.

I'm just saying it is not reaching the world as a unified Democratic message; it is coming out as disparate individual positions.

At the same time, no one has clearly articulated the basic unifying principles that Democrats share. (Perhaps, I fear because there are none.)

Go ask typical people in your community what the Democrats stand for and what they'll do if given control of Congress. Unless you live in the weirdest town in America, pretty much no one will have the slightest idea. Either that or they will quote what Limbaugh or Hannity of Brit Hume say the Democrats will do.

I've been a Democratic activist for most of the last 30 years. I'd love to hear a unifying message articulated.

[sandnsea]

33. You didn't list the differences

Tell me where those Democrats that you mentioned differ on those 10 issues. Besides Lieberman. I didn't ask for a bunch of right wing bullshit or the gratuitous "I'm an activist" line, I asked for where Democrats disagree on those 10 points.

[leftofthedial]

44. right wing bullshit?

I told you clearly in English my opinion about a problem the Democrats need to address. Their message is not effectively reaching the public. They are losing an excellent opportunity now to exploit current bush and repuke weakness. I also told you I agree with what they have been saying.

:shrug:

Besides Lieberman. LOL

You see, sandnsea, if you'd stop foaming at the mouth long enough to talk to me, you might just find that we basically agree. Our challenge is to influence voters with the particulars of that agreement.

[sandnsea]

46. Are the 10 points not clear enough for you?

Are they different than the message of any other Democrat?? Even after you have it laid out in the simplest terms possible, you still say there's no message. Yes, that's right wing bullshit. And I highly doubt I will ever agree with somebody who chooses to spew that shit instead of the message that is right in front of their face.

[leftofthedial]

47. good luck to you sandnsea

[sandnsea]

49. One too many Dem bashing posts I guess

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2507595

[Iowa]

50. Leftofthedial, I get what you're saying...

Good posts.

[blue neen]

45. I watched Kerry's speech on C-Span tonight.

The message he laid out was essentially the same as Dean's, sometimes down to the exact wording.

You know what? It sounded GOOD! :)

[leftofthedial]

58. why don't all the leading Dems stage an event

I hate to say it, but something like Gingrich did with the Contract on America,

and state basic principles and a plan? Simultaneously release a more detailed document with more info about the plans?

My concern is not with what they are saying. It is with the way they are disseminating the information. It's not getting through to the public.

As I've said before, even if they are releasing IDENTICAL plans, doing it one Dem at a time, each in his or her own name, makes it look to the public as though the Dems are not unified.

[blue neen]

61. Agreed

The plans they have already come up with sound great and also provide good sound bites. To hear these points in unison,as one voice, would be even better.

[jenndar]

48. K&R. Thanks for posting. n/t