Organizing for America is asking for money for an ad campaign to support Obama's health care plan.

[Lasher]

I just got their email last night, asking for $25 or more. I'm sure they'll get plenty from the insurance companies. So they won't need whatever chump change I might have come up with if single payer hadn't been so ruthlessly marginalized.

[FLAprogressive]

1. they won't get one red cent from me. no single payer = no good

[billyoc]

2. I already gave it to their benefactors at the insurance company.

[lostnotforgotten]

3. No Single Payer = No Money From Me! - Unemployed 5 Years - 5 Years Of Health Care Hell

eom

[sandnsea]

5. What are you living on?

Unemployed 5 years? Are you accessing DU from the library?

[lostnotforgotten]

7. Unemployed 2000 - 2005 - Life Savings Wiped Out - Presently Employed

eom

[sandnsea]

4. Obama never ever campaigned on single payer

What kind of thinking process does one use to get mad about something when you were specifically told it wasn't going to be considered?

We need to focus on the PUBLIC OPTION or we're not going to get that either.

[lostnotforgotten]

9. He Did Campaign On Openness, Inclusion, And Transparency - Seems That Justifies Debate Alone

eom

[sandnsea]

15. Sure. If you want nothing in the end

Knock yourself out. Fight for something you're never going to get while there is absolutely nobody fighting for what you could get - which means you'll get nothing. Good Plan.

[lostnotforgotten]

18. No responsive Reply - Have No Clue What Point Was Made

eom

[sandnsea]

20. I'll make a new point

You are here to agitate and nothing more. Ignore.

[lostnotforgotten]

24. I'll Make A Point - Personal Attacks Are Against DU Rules

eom

[Lasher]

10. You are correct, Obama has never promised to endorse single payer.

But I am just a tad upset about the way single payer advocates have been excluded from discussions, particularly those held by the Senate Finance Committee.

The public option, BTW, is a red herring.

[sandnsea]

14. How the fuck is a PUBLIC HEALTH PLAN a red herring?

Explain that.

[Lasher]

16. Ask me nice and I might tell you.

Somebody forgot their happy pill today.

[sandnsea]

17. Oh noes - someone said "fuck"

And will say it again. How the fuck is a PUBLIC HEALTH PLAN a red herring?

Keep your shitty sarcasm to yourself since you obviously forgot to take YOUR happy pill - and just answer the question.

[Lasher]

22. Nope, I don't take orders from you.

Judging from your behavior it would be over your head anyway.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. IMHO it's not a red herring, But excluding stake holders is a stratedgy for failure.

If we want to assume say, that Single payer advocates and the insurance industry are incapable of good faith negotiations and of compromise, then both single payer advocates and the insurance industry should be shut out.

A better strategy, IMHO, would be to include both groups in the negotiations.

Haven't we learned anything from the Clinton experience in 1993?

[Lasher]

35. OK I'll elaborate but don't tell sandnsea.

The public option would be highly similar to private insurance coverage, with government employees used in place of private sector reps. But I wouldn't be surprised to see this outsourced to the private sector. One redeeming value I expect in such a program is that people might be able to sign up despite having pre-existing conditions.

Now reflect with me on Medicare Part C, also known as Medicare Advantage. Part C was sold on the false prophecy that it would be a much better replacement for Parts A and B. But what a surprise, everything is not always done best in the private sector. Junior and his Bush league lapdog GOP Congress to the rescue! The government is now paying more per capita into Part C that it is into Parts A & B. Obama said during the campaign he wants to end this subsidy. He's right, insurance companies wanted to compete with Parts A & B on a level playing field. They should be held to this.

With this Part C issue in mind, insurance companies will work to make sure they don't have to compete on a level playing field with any public option. They'll want it to fail, and if you look at who has actually had a seat at the table during discussions, they'll have the latitude to design it to make sure that will happen.

I did learn from the Clinton experience in this. Single payer wasn't given a fair chance then either and the whole thing got bogged down in Congressional bickering, with industry lobbyists pulling the strings. Just like now. And then Democrats were slaughtered in the 1994 midterms, when progressives stayed home in droves.

Edit: Just to let you know I'll be offline, gotta go work in the garden now.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Fuck them

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Stinky, which single payer plan do you support?

[John Q. Citizen]

8. i would consider it if I knew what the plan was. While I've worked for single payer since

1990 and am still working for it, i would also accept a bridge to single payer. But the plan isn't down on paper. So I can't say what I do or don't support about the plan.

Canada didn't just vote in a system and put it in place. It took them about 40 years to go from private insurance to a single payer system. Google Canada single payer timeline, and you will get the picture.

I agree with you that single payer advocates need a seat at the table in the discussions as to what the reform will look like.

Howard Dean and Move on has some good ideas for a transition to single payer. but it will take time to turn around what we are currently doing.

Anyone who thinks it won't doesn't know anything about the nuts and bolts of the situation. They know they like the idea of single payer, and that's awesome, so do I.

Truly, the fastest way to single payer would be if all Americans dropped all their private health insurance coverage. But my dad is being treate dfor cancer. I don't think he'd want to do that. He's for single payer, but until there is an alternative in place, he isn't going to drop his coverage. And he's a dual US Canadian citizen who has lived his life in the US.

But that's part of the transition problem.

Have you actually read the Medicare for all act? Or have you just heard about it? It's an outline without any numbers, with out any actual definitions of what would be covered. it's a starting place, not a finished completed plan. So if it were voted in and signed today it would take years to actually fill in all ther blanks, and those blanks would be contested in the house and Senate. and in the meantime a lot of people still wouldn't have coverage and would be asking why it didn't work.

[glowing]

12. At this point with the job situation, allowing people to access medicare would be a start.

The "Cobra help" is b.s., If your on unemployment and making less than you were struggling with before, then you don't keep insurance.. and with many people having hours cut even if employed, leaves many underemployed. Just having the ability to access it would help so many people. Its not like so many will be using it for much more than regular check ups.. but for that emergency, you won't hit the final wall and end up on the street.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Cobra is so weak, It's unusable for most. The problem is that funding for Medicare

pays for the coverage for people 65 and older.

How would we pay for it to cover others?

People expect results now. What they don't understand it their is no way to get results now.

Add to that whose ever stupid idea it was to completely cut single payer advocates out of the hearings (Baucus has to take the responsibility on that, even if it was a staffers idea) and people are up in arms. That's both good and bad, IMHO.

my hope is that people will actually look at what it';s going to take us to get to there from here.


The savings from single payer are real, but until we have everyone with an income paying into a system (and no longer paying into private systems) we won't see savings but increases in costs. Will the public stand for that?

Will vets be OK with no more VA? How do we convert long term obligations for retirement coverage into the single payer pool.

It took ten years to get to the moon when Kennedy decide to go. Single payer is far more complicated politically to implement.

I would be a lot more inclined to send money if single payer just had a seat at the table. Or if there was an actual bill that I could read that was complete. even the single payer bills in congress are just outlines. There is any flesh on those outlines at this point.

[sandnsea]

21. The Public Plan Option needs to be at the table

The Single Payer people need to pour all their wisdom and energy into making the public plan as cost-effective and functional as it can be so that transisting to single payer will go faster. I don't give a crap what it's called, the public option IS the transition to single payer so would the single payer people just get there already.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. I know, but baucus has said the public pool is a good bargaining chip. That suggests

he wants to bargain it away.

My analysis is that single payer needs to be at the table so it is the bargaining chip to a strong public pool.

You and I agree on almost everything in terms of what we want out of this attempt at refrom, S&S.

Our only disagreement is on strategy. I honestly don't think that people who see the wisdom of a single payer system (especially the newbies to that wisdom :) ) are any more prepaid to now relinquish there new found world view than the private insurers are prepared to
substantially change the status quo.

I think we need to trade off single payer Now! for single payer in five or ten years. But if it's not at at the table we can't bargain it away for a strong public pool that will get us to a single payer system down the road.

Instead the the public pool will be bargained away to get us a better minimum benefits package, or community rating, or other things that also will be negotiated.

[sandnsea]

28. Ad he WILL bargain it away

As long as nobody is fighting for it. How does fighting to get a seat at the table where you're going to be ignored equate to already sitting at the table and fighting to keep the public option?

[John Q. Citizen]

30. This slightly of the current discussion, but do you know if Kennedy is intrducing his own

comprehensive plan?

back to our discussion; In negotiations it is always wise to ask for more than you think you can get. If you ask for what you want and refuse to budge, then that's not a negotiation, its a demand.

If we go in asking for a strong public pool what will we then be willing to give up to come to a compromise?


edited to add- Also, if single payer advocates get a seat at the table so do the millions of members of the public who favor single payer. If those millions are screaming that they are cut out of the picture, how do you educate them that a public pool is what they really want and need? They will be fighting for what they think they want and need.

Having a seat at the table means an opportunity to educate millions of Americans. We need to bring them along and not cut them out of the process.

(Edited once again-) What i'm hoping is that Kennedy introduces a comprehensive single payer bill. that will act as a stick to help get a strong public pool passed. The insurers can be told to take their pick.

It will also give millions of Americans a stake in the process(yes i know they sorta have one any way, but they will see someone is listening) The Senate can pass the compromise bill (strong public pool) Max can have his legacy, Kennedy already has a legacy that max would die for. I don't think Max will run again, (2014) but i could be wrong.

And the Kennedy bill can of course be brought up again for the next transition. Problem solved! (damn I should be president :) )

[sandnsea]

31. Negotiate for the details of the public plan

Negotiate for strong regulation, negotiate for truly affordable costs, negotiate for low or no co-pays. There will be a ton of stuff to negotiate for. But guess what, nobody is going to be negotiating for any of that because the only people who will stand firm won't be there.

[John Q. Citizen]

36. Do you think the stratedgy is working right now? You already conceed that you

can't get the peole who will stand firm to come to the table and fight for your plan.

How do you intend to change that to bring all those people who will stand firm to fight for what you want?


Which details of a public plan are you willing to give away? Do you have any specific details you can share that you would say OK< that can go?

[sandnsea]

41. Because the single payer people

are the ones who will stand firm - but they're too busy stomping their feet rather than take 6 months out and help the public option people.

[John Q. Citizen]

42. why can't the public option people get the single payer people into the tent?

That was my question.

Is it because the single payer people are bad and too stupid? Or is it because the public option people have a strategy that's failing?

[sandnsea]

44. lol, stubborn anarchists

who are really only good at organizing protests -- which is clear to see when there is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the left to be the second party and they can't get it together enough to even launch a real effort in that direction.

You say yourself that it'll take decades to get to single payer and that people have to have health care in the meantime - so why do you object to a public option plan that will lead to single payer?

[John Q. Citizen]

45. I said 4 or 5 years if it passed today to be fully implemented.

I object to the strategy being employed to attempt to get a public option plan. It's not working. I think the strategy needs to be revisited.

I keep saying that the strategy to get people to sign on to a public pool isn't working, but you don't seem to be able to understand what I'm saying. You instead keep reiterating why the strategy is so good. Perhaps the 'anarchists' in the Beaverhead County Democratic Central Committee can explain it so you can understand what I'm saying.

Here a real life example of what I mean. This was posted to Montana Blog "Left in the West" today

**********************

Beaverhead Democrats criticize Max

We're voting today to decide whether or not to send a critical open letter to Max Baucus. If the vote passes, and I think it will, this is what will appear:

Honorable Max Baucus

It has not escaped our notice that the Senate Finance Committee, which you head, has excluded from its deliberations advocates of a single-payer public program. The only voices your committee is choosing to listen to are those of corporate healthcare interests, the very interests that have brought about the crisis currently afflicting us.

Nor has it escaped our notice that you have taken more money from companies committed to the healthcare status quo than any other Democrat in Congress. Though you had no serious Republican challenger in 2008, you accepted the following sums of money from for-profit healthcare interests:

Insurance companies: $592,185
Health professionals: 537,141
Pharmaceutical/health
products: 524,813
Health services/HMOs: 364,500
Hospitals/nursing homes: 332,826
Total: $1,826,652

Ninety-one percent of these political contributions came from out of state. No wonder some call you "the Senator of K Street."

It is clear to us that you are too beholden to these groups to oversee a fair discussion of issues involving them. You should immediately pass off the chairmanship of the committee, at least for the duration of the health insurance deliberations, to another senator less in the pocket of these special interests.

Advocates of a single-payer healthcare option, an option favored by sixty percent of the American public and operating quite efficiently and far less expensively in Canada and virtually every European country, need to receive a fair hearing by your committee, with or without you as its chairman.

We supported you in the last election. But if you continue to side with large corporations against ordinary Montanans, rest assured that we will support a Democratic challenger to you in the next primary.

Sincerely,

Richard Turner, Secretary
Beaverhead County Democrats

[sandnsea]

46. I lived in Montana for 15 years

I guess you forget that. Yes there are anarchists in Montana too, and yes many local Dem Clubs draw as many anarchists as mainstream, sometimes more.

I understand perfectly what you're saying. Just like I understand the single payer activists in my own town who are saying the same thing.

What you don't understand is that YOUR strategy isn't working and hasn't worked for the decades you've been harping on it.

In the meantime, health care in the US gets worse and worse because there's nobody at the table except the politicians and corporations.

[John Q. Citizen]

47. You still don't get what i'm saying and that's OK. i know you lived in MT which is why I posted this

to you. Because I thought it might provide an illustration that the strategy to get people behind the public pool is failing. you apparently feel the strategy to get people behind the public option is very successful and as such, I would suggest that you keep doing exactly what you are doing, because, in your mind it's a shoe in to pass.

That's the Beaverhead county central committee that is voting today, not a club. They are the party at the county level.

My strategy is to get prominent single payer experts to the table, publicly, so that education can take place for the American People, and then single payer can be bargained away in return for a good strong public pool.

There is SEIU at the table. They are the main advocates of the public pool along with Move On, DFA, and I assume, the Obama administration. SEUI and Obama are very close, and I think it's a good idea, except they should insist that those who want a single payer system are also included at the table. Obama could call to allow single payer experts to testify to congress, he could meet with them at the White House.

Single payer is certainly winning with the public at large I think. We have a majority of Doctors with us, The California Nurses Association, and all the rest of the anarchists, including the Beaver head County Central Committee.

If this passes my guess is it will be repeated around the state. I'm a voting member of the Missoula County Dems, and I would vote for it as would most others I know.

You want to help get a strong public pool passed? Get the groups working for a public pool to insist that single payer advocates get a fair hearing in Congress and at the White House, And the public pool will pass.

Or don't and try to swim up stream against an avalanche of public opinion.

See, what is happening is that OUR strategy of the last 25 years has paid off and we have a consensus in the public for single payer. The Congress and the insurers, and SEIU, and Move on and DFA is behind the curve.

The money will stop the congress, but don't let the glory stop SEIU, Move on and DFA. They need to maneuver to get single payer experts at the table so that we can get a public pool.

[sandnsea]

52. Good Luck With That

And I'll still be here in the fall, when we have no single payer and no public option either.

I did not say getting people behind the public option is successful right now. I specifically said the people we need to fight for the public option are stuck on single payer - and so there isn't anybody fighting for the public option so Baucus will trade it away. That was my first post to you, maybe second.

Democratic Club, local Dem Party that sends reps to the central committee. At least that's what they're called here. I don't know what you call your most local party. In Oregon, they run to the left, as they did in Missoula and Bozeman when I lived there.

Here's a report on the health meetings a while back, where you can see single payer did get discussed.
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hccd/solutionsb.html

And here are some of the statistics from the meetings.
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hccd/figures.html

[John Q. Citizen]

53. Sure at the local meetings single payer was discussed. In fact here is

an article from early January in the Missoulian where the reporter said that at meetings in Helena, Missoula, Miles City and Bozeman single payer was the most popular (he said in Bozeman their wasn't a consensus) but in all other three there were and it was for single payer.

It bums me out that Obama ignores what people are saying. then he wants us to support what he ramming down our throats.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/01/08/news/local/news02.txt


We need to be at the national table and I'm sure we will get there. Hopefully the fight to be heard and recognized won't turn so ugly that the minority of people wreck the chance for reform.

Single payer is the most popular choice according to the polls. Trying to thwart the will of the people is a soul churning business.

As Frank Zappa said, "It's hard to defend an unpopular policy."

[sandnsea]

54. 27% of meetings discussed single payer

And that was with a huge push to get single payer advocates to the meetings.

The majority in those polls support government sponsored health insurance. The public option IS government sponsored health insurance. People do prefer single payer over private insurance, if it's an either/or choice; but they'll accept a hybrid plan as well.

Here's Enzi at the Heritage Foundation, this past Tuesday. We are in a fight for the public option - right now. How can anybody possibly think focusing on single payer is a winning strategy this year?

"We have heard much debate about a public plan option and we have heard Democrats
recently begin to back away from a government-run plan. I believe that many of my colleagues
are beginning to see that increasing the size and scope of government’s role in health care and
further squeezing a private market-place will drive up costs and drive down quality every single
time. As the public, the editorial boards and reasonable people on both sides of the aisle
continue to delve deeper into the practicality of a public option, I believe it will continue to
recede further into the background."

http://help.senate.gov/Min_press/2009_05_12_a.pdf

[sandnsea]

55. Cripes, Baucus doesn't even have the public plan

in his speeches. At least Obama is still talking about a public option, did you see his remarks in New Mexico? “If you don’t have health care or you’re highly unsatisfied with your health care, then let’s give you choices, let’s give you options, including a public plan that you could enroll in and sign up for.”

As opposed to Baucus:

"For all of these reasons, last week I released a “Call to Action” which aims to do three
things: get everyone in America covered with decent health insurance, reduce health care
costs so that everyone can afford the care they need, even if their insurance is pretty
basic, and make America healthier with better quality care and more preventive care.
The plan will cover the uninsured by strengthening the employer-based system, by
targeted expansions in public programs, and by creating a new arrangement – the Health
Insurance Exchange – where individuals and small businesses can go to get affordable
coverage.
The plan calls for everyone to have health coverage – an individual responsibility. And a
responsibility for employers to either provide coverage or to contribute toward covering
the uninsured."

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2008press/prb111708.pdf

He hasn't changed his position since last year.

[John Q. Citizen]

56. Yep, an institutionalized two tiered system then we go away for another 20 years

"even if their insurance is pretty basic"

Pretty basic?

Why?

So the rich can get richer, that's why.

Thanks BO. For not listening to the people.


I notice that in the report they don't bother to mention

a. How many of there 27% that they say were on single payer were for single payer. They don't give numbers. And MIles City never even shows up on the maps as a meeting.But we know there was a meeting because it's in the missoulaian and they quote the person who hosted it. Also 75% of the three meetings reported in the Missoulian were for single payer. Why is MT such an outlier?

b. How were subjects selected?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Poll-Excludes-Single-Payer-by-Jerry-Policoff-090312-353.html
You actually have to ask if people support a single payer system. Of course Obama would rather not know that. It gives him cover.


Can't keep writing you back right now, we are planning demonstrations at Baucus office across the state and I'm busy organizing.

[sandnsea]

57. That is not Obama - that's Baucus

Nice way to just completely dismiss what I said. Why nothing ever changes.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. My mistake, I misread it. I'm busty, it's late here.

But if you google 'single payer polls' you will find a whole bunch that show that people favor it.

Ok course if you don't ask the question then people can't tell you what they favor.

I still don't know how subject were selected for the meetings.

I fing it strange the report didn't mention that montana is a hot bed for single payer.

Wonder how they missed that?

[sandnsea]

59. You're busty, lol

Sorry, that's a funny typo.

Grandbaby needs a rocking to sleep.

I'm compiling names and organizations because you guys actually have more power to do anything than just about anybody else I can think of right now. They want to have this bill ready to go in early June. Not a lot of time which means a small state like Montana has an opportunity to mobilize and pressure its Senator. For single payer OR a public option, we can't lose both.

[John Q. Citizen]

61. And now it's too late to correct it.

Yes, Montana is a good place to organize.

The other thing I've been looking at is Senators up for election who are on the finance committee.

three Dems,

Wydon OR

Lincoln AR

Schumer NY


And Repo ranking minority Grassley IA

and Crapo ID

[sandnsea]

34. Kennedy-Baucus June Overhaul

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Newsletters/Washington-Health-Policy-in-Review/2009/Apr/April-27-2009/Kennedy-Baucus-Announce-Early-June-Health-Overhaul-Markups.aspx

See, the details are being negotiated NOW - and nobody representing US is at the table at all. And by US, I mean real people with real needs.

Remember, Sen Kennedy gave us the Medicare Drug Bill and NCLB. He tries hard, but he doesn't always get how legislation plays out in the real world. I suppose we need to see how he managed to do so well in getting SCHIP through because that program works as advertised.

[John Q. Citizen]

37. Kennedy voted against the Medicare drug bill. Baucus voted for it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459

NCLB isn't relevant to this. I didn't even check to see how Kennedy voted.


edited to add- Thanks for the link. This is important, that their are two bills, because it leaves open the possibility of forcing compromise on the insurance industry. Hamburger A or Hamburger B

They get it. I get it.

We need to do the same as the public. Hamburger A Strong public pool with everything we want in it. Hambuger B, Single payer. Take your pick.


That's why they are both introducing legislation. And it's why we should be doing a similar strategy as the public. That we get everybody in the fight.

[sandnsea]

39. Kennedy negotiated that bill

You asked about Kennedy. My point is that just because you have him in the negotiations, doesn't mean you're going to get something substantial coming out of it. He negotiated for, and voted for, NCLB. I think he played a key role in special ed requirements too, that also left the funding behind. I'm just saying it's time we get realistic about what we pass instead of pretending we've passed something that is going to help everybody, only to have the government's fine print make it completely unusable for those who really need it. Kind of like non-refundable tax credits for college, Bill Clinton's great "HOPE" college plan.

[Lasher]

13. My glass is usually half full.

But judging from developments so far, I think pessimism is justified. I worry that the bill will actually make things worse: Individual mandate, measures to end employer-paid health insurance, and perpetuation of an even more powerful health insurance industry.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. I share your concerns. Although ending employer based insurance is one of my main goals.

I would prefer a tax based system entirely, and employers would pay based on their income taxes just like everyone else. Tying health care to the work place is one of the problems we have now, IMHO.

Part of the problem is we have no real developments at this point. We have the Baucus outline. Does that mean we will have a strong public pool that will choke out private insurance as we go along? or will we have a weak public pool that will enshrine private insurance forever and create a two tiered system of good private coverage for the well off and shitty public coverage for everyone else?

It's funny, activists over the years have actually done a good job of educating the public on why a single payer system makes sense in terms of keeping cost down and covering everyone. We haven't done as good of a job in educating people on what it would take to actually implement such a system in the US. In fact, it seems we are just now learning this ourselves.

[Lasher]

27. I agree, employers have not been good health care stewards.

I would also like to see them out of the loop. But in this we hope for a replacement as good as, or better than, the current arrangements. That's the problem. Corporations have been pushing for some help in getting out of obligations to pay for workers' health insurance. But they don't want to see anything like single payer take its place. Here's the scam:

You might have noticed some recent discussion of taxing employees for the health care benefits they receive. This idea came up during the Bush administration. According to employers' plans this would encourage workers to opt for bare bones, catastrophic-only policies that include health savings accounts. Employers would then stop paying any portion of the premiums, shifting all costs to workers. This will be easier to do once workers have been encouraged or forced onto these low cost plans by this and other means. Employers will then act only as middlemen to offer group insurance that employees pay for themselves. A thick fog of corporate-speak would be employed to conceal this change from workers.

Game over, decent employee medical benefits replaced by shitty policies they pay for themselves.

You might have also noticed some talk about forcing employers to provide health coverage. If the above scenario plays out, that would just help promote the insurance companies' utopia: Individual mandate, with everyone paying tribute to them whether they like it or not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=210673

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Actually employers aren't necessarily opposed to single payer. The problem with

employment based health care is what if you want to quit and take six months off to try to start your own business?

what if buggy whips become obsolete and your employer shuts down? What if you have to care for a parent in a different city and you need to go part time with a different employer.

It's not that employers are good or bad, it's that what the hell does getting medical care have to do with where you work?

What if food was employer based, and you could only eat at the cafeteria at work? Or housing?You get housing through your employer and when you quit, get laid off, get fired, you employer goes bankrupt you no longer have a house until you get another job?

[Lasher]

38. I'm making an assumption that most employers in large companies = affluent Republicans

And most of them long for a return to the Gilded Age.

Other than that I'll take your questions as rhetorical, since we are like minded in this regard.

[John Q. Citizen]

40. They were retorical designed to demonstrate why employer based health care makes no

sense, especially these days when people are always changing jobs. It started as incentive to get workers during the war. Everybody was overseas and labor was in short supply, so employer brought it in to bring in workers.

And yes we are on the same side.

[HopeOverFear]

32. They can count on me, I will donate

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[depakid]

43. I guess when we know what it is- it might be worth contributing to

or not.

[FLAprogressive]

49. We already know it's not going to be single payer, and it's being crafted by insurance whores

[freddie mertz]

48. There is no plan yet, and what we have seen so far is not good...

First, I would NEVER donate for anything I haven't seen yet.

And second: the horrible process we have seen so far makes it seem unlikely that I will support the plan that emerges.

Next!

[Lasher]

50. That's pretty much what I was thinking.

I just hope this clusterfuck doesn't make things worse than they are today.

[freddie mertz]

60. Any for-profit based plan will almost certainly fail to do the job...

Maybe that is the point (sad).

[Delphinus]

51. I will give no more money

to them because they have refused to even look at Single Payer as a possibility.