President Obama’s Reprehensible Rhetoric Against Single-Payer

[Better Believe It]

Obama’s Reprehensible Rhetoric Against Single-Payer
By Matthew Rothschild
March 3, 2010

When Barack Obama gave his “this is it” speech on health care reform on March 3, he once again swerved out of his way to hit advocates of a single-payer system.

He said: “On one end of the spectrum, there are some who have suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with government-run health care. Though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic.”

There is not that much difference between “practical” and “realistic” if by both he meant to say politically possible. I suppose he could have really stretched the sentence out by saying “government-run health care . . . would be neither practical nor realistic nor feasible nor possible nor doable nor achievable nor viable.” But it would all mean the same thing. At bottom, he didn’t want to expend any political capital for it, or even for the robust public option.

Instead, he exploited advocates of a single-payer system as a foil to say, in not so many words, “I’m not an extremist like they are.”

He juxtaposed them with Republicans who want to “loosen regulations on the insurances companies.” And he did so in order to try to claim the middle ground, on the false and facile assumption that the middle ground is always the best ground.

Here’s how he put it: “I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America.”

By damning “government bureaucrats,” Obama played right into the hands of the anti-government crowd and made any durable expansion of health care coverage all the more difficult. He also insulted every single federal employee in the Medicare and Medicaid and VA and Indian health programs.

http://www.progressive.org/wx0303b10.html

[NJmaverick]

1. "reprehensible" would better describe this horrible article

than President Obama's remarks.

[polichick]

3. Only if you have some aversion to the truth. It was a cheap shot, no question. nt

[NJmaverick]

5. Your post is a text book example of irony

[polichick]

60. Your answer to the op is an example of mindlessness. nt

[Better Believe It]

4. And you think the article is "horrible" because ......... ?

[NJmaverick]

8. It's complete inaccurate and horribly inflammatory and its also destructive to our national interest

other than that, it was great

[Better Believe It]

10. The "national interest"? Do you think it was written by some kind of un-American subversive?

Does ya?

Perhaps the Department of Fatherland Security ought to check the writer and "The Progressive" out.

Might uncover some pinkos or terriorists!

[NJmaverick]

11. You could put whatever label suits your agenda, but it will not change the fact

that it was destructive. By the way to you need help finishing building the strawman you are hiding behind?

[Better Believe It]

12. If you can't refute the article why are you posting in this string?

[NJmaverick]

15. There is NOTHING to refute it's pure opinion with no facts or reason to support it

[freddie mertz]

18. There is no reasonable argument that single-payer could not work in the US.

At least, not that I have heard from YOU.

Since you apparently agree with the president's characterization, maybe you will take the time to write more than one line and give us a detailed, reasonable defense of his remark.

I'm betting you can't, and you won't.

[NJmaverick]

21. You create a false framing. Single payer is a proven system

however it's quite reasonable to make the assessment that it's not practical to institute it in this Country. Too much history with a different system that will create insurmountable obstacles from people that don't like or fear change as well as entrenched interest groups profit who from the current system and will block it at every turn.

So you were wrong in your bet (as usual).

[amborin]

42. it's not practical for corporations' profits; it's perfectly practical for everyone else

[NJmaverick]

56. That's how we end up being labeled "elitists" . It happens when we ignore the

people's fears and reluctance for change. It might be better for them, but you have to accept and deal with peoples fears about change.

[eridani]

75. So your reason for ignoring the 70% who want a public option, and--

--the 59% of doctors who want single payer is what, exactly?

[amborin]

88. it's not better for anyone to foist a corporate profit-enhancing, middle class-harming bill on peopl

[Usrename]

93. What are you talking about?

A huge majority supports a public option and most support single-payer.

The resistance to it is in the White House.

Obama is showing his reluctance to CHANGE.

[Enthusiast]

137. The fears were nurtured

by insurance industry propaganda. And we watched what was clearly manufactured outrage all summer long.

"Reluctance for change"? Is that why the country overwhelmingly voted for a candidate that used a main campaign message of 'change'?

[Jakes Progress]

156. Did you support it when Truman

ignored bigot's fears and integrated the military? Did you support it when Johnson ignored people's fears and reluctance by ramming though Civil Rights legislation?

I guess that would make Martin Luther King an elitist.

At least we know where you stand now. You seem to dream of a mandate to not rock the boat, to never make a republican mad, to emulate the do-nothing parties of the past.

[freddie mertz]

46. There is nothing in your response that supports Obama's argument (as I read it)..

Your statement is about ATTITUDES, not whether such a system could not work, which is what Obama seemed (to me) to be arguing.

Other countries had private systems and were able to make the transition.

Yes it would be easier to do it if we could turn the clock back 50 or more years, or 30, but we can't.

What we could do, if we had leadership worth "believing in," is begin to make the transition by expanding medicare and/or instituting a strong public plan as part of this reform.

That would be a tough fight, and the president obviously hoped that getting something much more privatized would have a better chance of passing.

So far, it still hasn't made the final hurdles.

Single-payer is and will one day be the only reasonable solution to this problem.

Better if we could have acknowledged that much earlier on, and invited advocates of this approach to the public forum, instead of dragging them away to jail.

[laughingliberal]

48. "Single-payer is and will one day be the only reasonable solution to this problem."

It will be the solution when the private sector has drained the populace of every last penny they have. Sadly, there will, likely, be no money left to fund it by then.

[NJmaverick]

57. You misunderstood what he said

[freddie mertz]

59. Maybe. Why were single-payer advocates forcibly excluded from the discussion ?

That speaks volumes to me about the integrity of the process.

I think they were excluded because the admin and its Senate allies FEARED the possibility of single-payer gaining steam.

The more you find out about it, the more you will understand that it is the best and only solution.

[NJmaverick]

65. When you are trying to get things DONE, you don't have time for political stunts and shows

everyone knows what single payer is, so you are not going to "educate" anyone and since it can't be done there is no point WASTING TIME talking about what we can't have. There were too many critical needs and not enough time or resources.

[freddie mertz]

73. Wait a minute. He gave PLENTY of time to Repukes and other advocates of doing nothing.

Endless Gang of Six Negotiations that dragged for months, recent seven hour summit, etc.

But letting progressive members of his own constituency make the case for real reform for a few hours in the Senate, THAT is "WASTING TIME"?

You will have to do better than that.

[NJmaverick]

80. So now you think President Obama should have broken his promise to be bipartisan

and try and unite the nation?

[freddie mertz]

103. I think he should have given at least SOME time to the supporters of genuine reform.

Not too much to ask, is it?

He ended up breaking his promise on the public option AND on the mandates AND of the excise tax as it is.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[pundaint]

151. So now you think that President Obamas campaign promises to People are secondary to

promises to Republicans? He mocked the direction he's leading us in, during his campaign. We agreed with him then, we Still agree with him Then. The problem is that Then we was only lying to us to get our votes.

[laughingliberal]

154. Yeah...it's pretty sad. nt

[Enthusiast]

141. The process has been

nothing BUT a waste of time. There is a reason to explain the advantages of single payer. The people would then at least demand a robust public option. Of course it really looks like Obama was against a public option all along.

[bvar22]

47. Everybody I know on Medicare...

...believe that it is more than "practical".

Please. Please, PLEASE let me enroll in Medicare!!!!

"Without a Public Option, there is no reform"

[NJmaverick]

58. Funny thing about Medicare

it tends to be carried by private insurance. What I mean by that there are many cases where hospitals, doctors, Emergency Medical Services and others take a loss treating Medicare patients (but still take them because they make up such a big percentage of the patient population) and count on the income from other insurance sources to balance out the losses. So some of Medicare's success is a false success.

It's funny you bring that up as I was just dealing with the issue of Paramedic intercepts and the failure of Medicare to pay for that critical life supporting service.

[eridani]

77. That is horseshit. They are carried by the people who pay the mafia extortion bills

--that private insurance demands.

[NJmaverick]

79. Nope, that is the TRUTH that is known by those that work in health care

sorry if the truth is inconvenient

[eridani]

87. Exactly where do those useless shitstains GET the money they use to "subsidize" Medicare?

By extortionate practices that would get them put up against a wall and shot in a sane world.

[bvar22]

85. Clearly, the rest of the civilized WORLD ...

.. is all WRONG.
ALL those assholes in the rest of the WORLD believe that Health Care is a basic Human RIGHT.
Hahahahahahahaha!

NJmaverick is CORRECT.
Mandated PROFITS for the Health Insurance Corporations is the only way to go!
EACH and EVERY American MUST be FORCED to contribute every year to the For Profit Corporations that manufacture NOTHING, and produce NO Value Added Wealth.

All HAIL the "Uniquely American Solution".
.
.
.
.
"By their works you will know them."

[Enthusiast]

146. Great post, bvar22!

Your post illustrates the weakness of NJmaverick's argument.

[Goldstein1984]

153. Churchill said it best...

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”

[laughingliberal]

155. +++1000, as usual. nt

[goclark]

94. +1

[ooglymoogly]

109. Single payer already exists...it works extremely well;

And quite simply, only needs to be expanded. It is called medicare and according to budget office works far superior to the insurance graft Obama is trying to shove down our throats. It is, however, restricted to folks over 65 who would knock your block off if you tried to take it from them. The emptiness of your argument is embarrassing. It is the(cynically unfunded) Bush boondoggle of the farcical Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (Medicare Part D) that poses a threat to the economy and was and is nothing more than a poison pill, feed the rich sham to destroy Medicare by making it impossible to pay for by siphoning of vast monies to the drug cartels and guess what..

[sabrina 1]

114. It wasn't practical to end several hundred years of slavery

a lot of history to try to change, yet good and ethical people never stopped trying until they finally succeeded because it was the right thing to do.

Ridding this country of a useless and costly Industry which has overseen the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, is also the right thing to do. All other civilized countries have done it, because it is the morally right.

I thought the motto of this president was 'yes we can'?? All I hear from him now, and from those who support his every move regardless of how wrong it is is 'no, we can't'!

We have to face the fact that this president is a huge disappointment. An appeaser to big business and far more interested in struggling to get a pat on the back from the rightwing than doing what is right and what the American people support. Iow, he's just another politician, and will not go down in history as anyone extraordinary. Sad, because if he had real convictions and the willingness to fight for them, he is certainly intelligent enough to have done so. Instead, he chose to be a mediocre president at best on all of the important issues.

[Enthusiast]

147. +1!

[suffragette]

150. Your argument echoes those made in Canada before their system was changed

It wasn't easy to do there either, and similar fomenting of fear and distrust went on, but they stuck to the best plan and made it happen.


http://www.slate.com/id/2245037/pagenum/all/#p2
Nearly 50 years before Sarah Palin gave us "death panels," the American Medical Association was testing the limits of health care scare tactics in the Canadian prairies. During the 1960 provincial election in Saskatchewan, the AMA helped fund an advertising campaign aimed at defeating the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, a quasi-socialist party whose leader, a former Baptist minister named Tommy Douglas, had promised to introduce universal, government-funded health care in the province.

The AMA, together with Saskatchewan's College of Physicians and Surgeons, warned that if the CCF won, doctors would leave the province in droves. But here was the kicker: As Dave Margoshes writes in his 1999 biography of Douglas, the campaign told voters that if the state were permitted to take over health care, "patients with hard-to-diagnose problems would be shipped off to insane asylums by bungling bureaucrats."
The campaign failed. Douglas won the election, and the CCF government went on to introduce his health care plan in 1962, creating the model that the rest of Canada would later follow. (So far as we know, insane-asylum panels did not come to pass.) But the fight for health care reform in Saskatchewan, which the AMA worried could spark change in the United States, was a precursor to the battle in America today—a mix of populist anger, political opportunism, and disinformation. As Democrats debate whether to pursue health care reform in the face of growing opposition, they might consider the lessons of Saskatchewan.

~~~~

But the anger of those months in Saskatchewan undermines a key belief in the debate over health care reform. When confronted with the overall success of Canada's brand of government-funded health care—better health outcomes at much lower cost—Americans tend to respond that such a broad government role is anathema to American culture. This has the ring of an excuse—after all, the idea was apparently somewhat anathema to Canadian culture in 1962. As Douglas said then, "We've become convinced that these things, which were once thought to be radical, aren't radical at all; they're just plain common sense applied to the economic and social problems of our times."


Protesting the implementation of medicare in Saskatchewan, July 11, 1962

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kermitt Gribble]

13. Lol! Ok, because you say so...

"and its also destructive to our national interest"

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

14. Ironically "because I say so" is at the heart of every article supporting your posiiton

:spray:

[Better Believe It]

17. OK. Enough disruptive "drive by personal attacks" by you. You're now on ignore.

Bye, Bye.

[NJmaverick]

19. Disputing falsehoods in inflammatory anti-Obama propaganda

is not a "drive by personal attack" but then if you were accurate in your posting most of your anti-Obama postings would be seen on DU.

[QC]

28. The article is also going to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inna]

177. Your ridiculous accusations are complete and utter bullshit,

and you know that.

"It's complete inaccurate and horribly inflammatory and its also destructive to our national interest" - geez, that accusation would be hilarious if it wasn't so malicious.

Disgusting.

[DeSwiss]

61. "There are none so blind as those, that will not see...." n/t

[Mithreal]

116. -1 Sticking to substance again I see

[lwcon]

129. Yes, it's historically historic when Obama pisses on liberals

And our values and interests. Hooray!!!!!

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

2. Yep - another cheap shot. I assume he's always covering his political ass...

...but it sure isn't admirable - and could easily lead to a primary challenge from a real progressive.

[Echo In Light]

7. The SYSTEM will not permit a "real progressive." Period. They'll offer up another phony w/window dre

dressing

[polichick]

62. That's probably true, as long as we have a two-party system...

I'd love to see a progressive populist party and a voter's revolution like we've never seen before.

[jonathon]

6. Progressives need to primary him in 2012 - he is a complete wolf

In Armani sheeps clothing

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Howard Dean would be the most logical candide to challenge Obama

But he would probably get Kuciniched in the primary.

[zipplewrath]

25. Someone like him

I'm not sure who could do it. You need a Kennedy type. I'm afraid that Dean might come off as just pissed off that he wasn't put in the administration. And since, one way or another, health care will be seen as "yesterdays news" as well as much of the anti-war message, I'm afraid much of Dean's strength would be cut right out from under him. It's going to take some sort of fiscal progressive. Not sure who'd that'd be. Maybe a govenor but I can't even think of one right now. I figure Richardson is shot. Cuomo out of NY has been doing alot of work keeping the finacial service industry honest, he might be able to make a run.

[bvar22]

49. I agree.

Brand Obama was a very successful Corporate Marketing Scam, right down to the "shelter dog".

[Romulox]

9. Recommend. nt

[freddie mertz]

16. K & R. Obama now calls what he endorsed just a few years ago "impractical and unrealistic."

What has changed since then?

Oh yeah....

[frebrd]

22. No matter how you spin it.........

the man is a corporatist.

:(

[quiet.american]

23. Translation: Obama hurt my feelings. nt

[fascisthunter]

26. "feelings" have nothing to do with it

[quiet.american]

31. A real, substantive rebuttal from Rothschild would be welcome.

It would be nice to see a single-payer article that substantively takes on the practicalities of implementing single-payer, instead of simply assaulting Obama's character.

[Better Believe It]

38. Here's a very credible study on the costs and practicality of single-payer Medicare for All

Research and Reports on Health Care
For Immediate Release
January 14, 2009

First-of-Its Kind Study: Medicare for All (Single-Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages

Establishing a national single-payer style healthcare reform system would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs, and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, with another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy, according to the findings of a groundbreaking study released today. It may be viewed at: http://www.calnurses.org/research/pdfs/ihsp_sp_economic_study_2009.pdf

The number of jobs created by a single-payer system, expanding and upgrading Medicare to cover everyone, parallels almost exactly the total job loss in 2008.

"These dramatic new findings document for the first time that a single-payer system could not only solve our healthcare crisis, but also substantially contribute to putting America back to work and assisting the economic recovery," said Geri Jenkins, RN, co-president of the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association, which sponsored the study.

"Through direct and supplemental expenditures, healthcare is already a uniquely dominant force in the U.S. economy," said Don DeMoro, lead author of the study and director of the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy, the NNOC/CNA research arm.

"However, so much more is possible. If we were to expand our present Medicare system to cover all Americans, the economic stimulus alone would create an immense engine that would help drive our national economy for decades to come," DeMoro said.

Expanding Medicare to include the uninsured, and these on Medicaid or employer-sponsored health plans, and expanding coverage for those with limited Medicare, would have the following immediate impacts:

Create 2,613,495 million new permanent good-paying jobs (slightly exceeding the number of jobs lost in 2008)
Boost the economy with $317 billion in increased business and public revenues
Add $100 billion in employee compensation
Infuse public budgets with $44 billion in new tax revenues
Further, moving to the new system comes with an unexpectedly low price tag, given the economic benefits and the far-reaching consequences of genuine healthcare reform, DeMoro noted.

Healthcare for all far less than the Wall Street bailouts

Adding all Americans to an expanded Medicare could be achieved for $63 billion beyond the current $2.1 trillion in direct healthcare spending. The $63 billion is six times less than the federal bailout for CitiGroup, and less than half the federal bailout for AIG. Solely expanding Medicare to cover the 47 million uninsured Americans (as of 2006 data on which the study is based) could be accomplished for $44 billion.

The IHSP projections build from an econometric model of the current face of healthcare – applying economic analysis to a wide array of publicly available data from Medicare, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and other sources.

It is the first known study to provide an econometric analysis of the economic benefits of healthcare to the overall economy, showing how changes in direct healthcare delivery affect all other significant sectors touched by healthcare, and how sweeping healthcare reform can help drive the nation's economic recovery.

Healthcare presently accounts for $2.105 trillion in direct expenditures. But healthcare spreads far beyond doctor's offices and hospitals. Adding in healthcare business purchases of services or supplies and spending by workers, the total impact of healthcare in the economy mushrooms to nearly $6 trillion.

Overall, every direct healthcare dollar creates nearly three additional dollars in the U.S. economy. In current form, healthcare:

Generates 45 million jobs, directly and in other industries.
Accounts for 10.5 percent of all U.S. jobs and 12.1 percent of all U.S. wages.
Totals 9.2 percent of the nation's Gross National Product.
Contributes about 25 percent of all federal tax revenues. Federal, state, and local taxes from the healthcare sector in 2006 added up to $824 billion.
All those numbers would rise dramatically through comprehensive healthcare reform. But a single-payer system would produce the biggest increase in jobs and wages. The reason, DeMoro said, is that "the broadest economic benefits directly accrue from the actual delivery and provision of healthcare, not the purchase of insurance."

Medicare for all has numerous other benefits, of course, noted Jenkins, from a streamlined system with tens of billions less in private insurance administrative waste, guaranteed choice of physician and hospital, no loss of coverage when unemployed, and no one denied coverage due to age or health status.

"Only a single-payer, expanded Medicare-for-all approach ends the current disgraceful practice of insurance companies refusing to pay for medical treatment or engaging in rampant price gouging that discourages patients from going to the doctor, seeing specialists, or getting diagnostic procedures in a timely manner," said Jenkins.

The IHSP has conducted research for members of Congress and state legislatures as well as NNOC/CNA, and received international renown for research studies on cost and charges in the hospital industry, the pharmaceutical industry, hospital staffing, and other healthcare policy.

Robert Fountain, a frequent economics consultant for the California Public Employees Retirement System (Cal-PERS), served as a consultant on the study.

Read the full study at:

http://www.calnurses.org/research/pdfs/ihsp_sp_economic_study_2009.pdf

http://www.calnurses.org/research/

[quiet.american]

39. Thanks. I look forward to studying it. nt

[Better Believe It]

41. Look around on DU and you'll find other articles and studies on this matter.

[quiet.american]

44. No doubt. nt

[Mithreal]

117. -1 I am sure that is it. Mock us just like Beck.

[HughMoran]

167. hahaha!

He got you good!

[Mithreal]

169. Did he now? So, one need only respond to posts that are personally insulting? I think not.

[sabrina 1]

160. Translation of your post:

'I care more about one man's feelings than about what is best for this country.'

Can you explain his major flip-flop on Health Care reform, or are not interested in what a president does so long as s/he is a Democrat?

He DID say the exact opposite of what he is now saying. Did you agree with him when he said that this country needed a Single Payer system like everyone else and that he was for that and that it was the only practical way to go? Were you arguing with him then, accusing those who agreed with him of supporting him only because of their 'feelings'?

[nashville_brook]

24. strawmen make the best human shields.

if single payer had been on the table in the beginning, his remarks would actually have meaning

[inna]

29. Reprehensible indeed. "Uniquely American Way" = Profits Over People.

Disgusting and reprehensible indeed. No other civilized country in the world treats their citizens this way, as fodder for corporate profits. x(

[laughingliberal]

51. And don't forget: "Insurance Companies deserve to make a profit." nt

[cliffordu]

30. Another day, another smear. "Progressives" on the march!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Obama caves to the right = Water is wet.

:shrug:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

102. Obama hasn't caved to the right. He is part of the right.

[Mithreal]

118. +1

[kctim]

33. Could you explain why

you believe it would be practical, realistic, feasible, possible, doable, achievable, viable?

[fascisthunter]

34. because the majority of Americans want it

but because this President and many in our own party are controlled by corporate interests, it isn't happening.

[kctim]

43. IF a majority

of Americans wanted it, it would be policy, barring any Constitutional issues of course.
What proof do you have that a majority of Americans want single-payer and are willing to pay for it?

I voted for 'this President.' I am a member of the Democrat Party. I am NOT controlled by corporate interests on bit. Single-payer isn't happening because people like me do not want it.

[laughingliberal]

52. "If a majority of Americans wanted it, it would be policy."

Untrue! Polls show 82% of the people want a public option in the HCR bill. But we're not getting it as far as we can see, now.

[kctim]

53. We are speaking of single-payer here

not a Public Option.

Polls show 82% now? Interesting. The last one I saw had it around 72%, I think, with less than half of that 72% not wanting it bad enough to pay for it.

[laughingliberal]

55. Your statement was that if a majority of Americans wanted it (single payer)

it would be policy. I would assume you were expressing a belief that those policies a majority favor are enacted. Or is your premise only true for some policies? I saw reports that support for HCR goes up to 82% with a PO included. The support for a mandate without a public option is well below 50% but that's what we're likely to get. Polling in December showed only 33% favoring a mandate with no public option. Your premise that if a majority of the people wanted (insert anything here), it would be policy is, patently, false. Our representatives no longer represent the interests of the majority of Americans. And single payer is no exception. Polls could show 90% support for it and we still would not get it.

[kctim]

67. You cannot simply "insert anything here"

when speaking of getting or not getting policy favored by the majority. All policy must pass Constitutional muster and opposition, something single-payer and a PO has not been able to do yet.

IF 82% want a PO or single-payer, then that many people will elect reps to give it to them. I guess its possible the people will do that in Nov and prove me wrong, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that happening. In fact, I don't doubt that even more reps who do not support it will be elected.

FWIW, I fully support President Obama when he said 51 does not make a majority. In fact, I think anything like HCR should be done by 2/3 as the founders intended it to be done. That way there is no question as to what the majority of the people want.

[laughingliberal]

91. I see no evidence the founders thought health care reform should require a 2/3 majority

As for electing people who will do what the majority want, I think there's ample evidence we elect people to do what we want and they do what they want. At least 2/3 of the people in this country want a public option if there is a mandate. Our lawmakers are not representing us. People in November are going to throw the Democrats out of office for holding a majority since 2006 and getting very little done to help any average Americans.

Only 33% of the population wants a mandate without a PO. I think it's obvious our lawmakers do not care what we want.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[eridani]

78. How fucking stupd to you have to be to prefer a $450/ month

--"premium" to a $125/month "tax"?

[laughingliberal]

105. +1000 nt

[Daphne08]

126. +10000

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[Inuca]

143. Where does the $125/month

figure come from? My guess, and it's nothing but a guess + what I know from people living in rance and Germany, is that it would be quite a bit higher. I still think it would be a better system, but that's another story.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[DiverDave]

173. Democrat party???

Huh, a Freudian slip, perhaps??

Single Payer IS the answer...and obama lied to me.

[CBR]

125. That is not true. Just not true. nt

[inna]

163. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7841952&mesg_id=7854236

[CBR]

164. Why must you reply in such an immature fashion?

If single payer rhetoric could make it through one week of our news media cycle I would run naked through the National Mall.

[inna]

165. Why must you reply in such an immature fashion?

classical projection on your part.

if not convinced, re-read your comments in this thread.

[inna]

162. absolutely true and obvious to anyone capable of (critical) thinking. or thinking in general.

[Better Believe It]

35. If it's not doable, then why are so many other countries successfully doing it?

[quiet.american]

40. Politics. nt

[kctim]

50. Because they do not have the history we have

Our nation was founded on the basic principle of individual freedom, theirs were not. The wants and needs of the few, do not trump the rights of ALL, here. So, as I believe was mentioned earlier in the thread, changing these beliefs will take a lot of time and is not going to happen overnight. It is NOT doable at this time and when it is doable, it will be done with a Constitutional Amendment, as it should be.

[Better Believe It]

64. "Our nation was founded on the basic principle of individual freedom" That's why we had slavery.

And all nations that were not founded on freedom, such as Canada have a healthcare for all!

You're joking .... right?

[kctim]

89. Do you read any history?

Slaves were NOT considered individuals, they were property. But, using this weak example, the basic principle of individual freedom is why we no longer have slavery and ending it did not occur overnight. Now, I am in no way trying to equate the two, we both know that human rights are far more important, but it took hundreds of years for people to change their minds about slavery and to believe everybody will change their minds about healthcare over the course of a decade or two, is ridiculous.

"And all nations that were not founded on freedom, such as Canada have a healthcare for all!"

No shit. That is why I stated they do NOT have our history, our way of life, in order to have overcome and get the healthcare for all they have.
Changing minds does not happen overnight.

[Better Believe It]

99. So a nation is based and founded on individual freedom if it had slavery, like the United States

Got ya!

Freedom is slavery. Sounds a bit Orwellian.

Thanks for the history lesson.

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[t0dd]

100. "The wants and needs of the few, do not trump the rights of ALL, here"

Do you know what you are talking about? This is the United States. A corporate kleptocracy. The wants and needs of the few ALWAYS trump the rights of ALL. Our greedy for-profit health care system is a primary example of this. That's why 50K of our citizenry die every year: to guarantee profits are protected of a few insurance executives and their investors.

[Daphne08]

127. Huh?

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[donco6]

142. Ridiculous.

We have all their history AND ours. We mostly come from "there."

[Enthusiast]

148. Pure fantasy.

HCR with a public option will be done with a Constitutional Amendment? Or single payer will be done with a Constitutional Amendment? Either way-wrong.

[Foo Fighter]

110. Because it's not doable here. Just look at what an abysmal failure

Medicare has been. Oh wait...

[Political Heretic]

36. Your choices aren't Right, Left or Middle Obama. Your choices are:

Wrong, Correct, or weak-ass collaboration with the enemies of poor and working class families.

That's all this President has been since taking office. A collaborator. :cry:

It's such a shame.

[Mithreal]

119. +1

[amborin]

45. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

54. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[bluethruandthru]

63. Obama is not a progressive - does not support progressives...

and I don't he likes progressives much either.
I always laugh at the righties who get all worked up about Obama the lib, Obama the socialist, blah, blah, blah. I tell them Richard Nixon was more liberal than Obama.

[polichick]

69. No, he's not...

imo there's an easy way to look at the current situation in the U.S.

We've got progressives who are interested in reaching our potential as a nation and a planet, regressives who want to go back to a time when civil rights, women's rights and a clean environment weren't important, and those who support the status quo - which is a country of, by and for corporations.

Looks like Obama best fits into the latter category.

[cornermouse]

92. I should be rolling on the floor laughing at this.

"We've got progressives who are interested in reaching our potential as a nation and a planet, regressives who want to go back to a time when civil rights, women's rights and a clean environment weren't important"

Obama's people were in the forefront of attacking Hillary on the basis of her gender. Obama's pushing "caps" aka shell games and "clean coal". Obama couldn't find the time to participate in Martin Luther King Day while he was running for office.

So you tell me who's the regressives?

[polichick]

96. So you think he's more a regressive than a corporatist? nt

[Green_Lantern]

66. I'm not sure why some progressives think..

The solution is either a fully public funded health system or nothing. Why not have a fully regulated private insurance system that includes a Medicare type buy in?

[Better Believe It]

68. "Why not have a fully regulated private insurance system that includes a Medicare type buy in?"

Because it's not supported by the private insurance industry and their political whores in Congress.

[Green_Lantern]

70. neither is single payer....

nt

[Better Believe It]

90. Why do you think we can't have medical care without a private insurance industry?

[Green_Lantern]

172. I never said that..

Actually I really don't know if we can do it without private insurance or not but even govt. systems like England have some private insurance plans. I do agree we need more govt. involvement in health care.

[Better Believe It]

174. Yes you did! You just wrote "I really don't know if we can do it without private insurance"

Don't you read your own words?

[Green_Lantern]

175. notice the words..

"I don't know"...I didn't say it couldn't be done.

[Kitsune]

71. Because making a profit from the pain and suffering of other human beings is disgusting.

Profit has no place in healthcare. Period. End of sentence.

[Green_Lantern]

72. why does profit have a place in food and housing...

But not health care?

[Kitsune]

76. Apples and oranges.

Aside from the fact that you're essentially arguing that it's fine for people to be homeless or go hungry if there's no profit in it for someone else, healthcare is an entirely different class of service. If supermarkets operated like health insurance, you'd have to pay exorbitant premiums just for the privilege of being allowed to look at the shelves, and if you wanted to actually take any food home you'd be paying 500 bucks for a candy bar, and woe betide the unfortunate who has preexisting hunger.

[Green_Lantern]

170. Actually I didn't mean profit driven insurance but the actual..

Health care. Making a profit from the providing of care I meant. I wasn't advocating an unregulated free for all but very strict price regulations.

I wasn't by any means arguing people should go hungry if someone can't profit from it, which is why food stampsand welfare exist. Businesses can profit still.

But I understand your point about insurance.

[eridani]

83. So you have to buy a plan to get "food coverage"

--and when you go to buy food maybe they'll pay for it and maybe not? And they constantly and whimsically change the list of grocery stores you are allowed to shop at?

[eridani]

82. That would work. Unfortunately, that is not what we are getting

Do you even have a clue what people in a fully regulated private system actually pay? In the Netherlands, it's 100 euros/month/adult, with NO copays, NO deductibbles, and NO age rating. There are no multiple tiers of "coverage" with only the shittiest barely more than cataatrophic available for subsidy. The Dutch government dictates provider fees as well.

[Green_Lantern]

171. I didn't say he current bill was a fully regulated system..

It doesn't even offer a Medicare type option but it offers something more then we have now. I know it is either all or nothing on DU though.

[ecstatic]

74. Explain how SP can be practically and realistically implemented today

Also be sure to note how you will address the current system used by doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies. If you lay it all out well enough, I'll be sold!

[upi402]

81. Huh? Please explain how Single Payer isn't practical

It saves our lives, money, and the deficit is lowered.

Please accept my :wtf: award of the day!

[ecstatic]

84. How would the implementation of it (given our current system) be practical

Not sure if you saw my sig but I too am sick to death of the current system, but any plan we cling to has to be reality based. SP would be the ideal system if we were starting from scratch, as the President has said many times.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[maryf]

98. They started Medicare from scratch...

took just over a year to implement...expanding it to all sounds practical to me...

[Mithreal]

120. We already have a single payer system and socialized medicine too.

Medicare and VA, two examples.

Ever heard of 'em?

[truedelphi]

95. Mr Obama, do not underestimate the intelligence of the American voters.

As you continue to play your starring role in the Kabuki theater kissing up (behind the scenes of course) to the inner circle of the Upper One Percent's enablers there in the Beltway, we the people have gotten the message - we know you are all working very hard, it's just that we also know you are not working for us.

When you try to run again as a Progressive, just as you ran as a Progressive in October 2008 (And the YouTubes exist to prove it) you will find that those of us willing to live on Ramen Soup and lots of enthusiasm will not be signing up new voters for your benefit, knocking on doors or calling on phones. Instead, we will find someone and something else that works for the middle incomed and not for Wall Street and the Big Insurers. And we will throw our energy to that person.

You will be consigned to the dung heap of history, Mr Obama.

George the Elder broke one campaign promise to America: "Read my lips, no new taxes." And for that he was ousted. You have already lied so many times that I have lost count. At first it was just about your appointees: Giethner, Mike Taylor, Valseck, and of course the ubiquitous Rahm.

But then you actually started giving speeches where you lied for most of the speech. And I refer you, Sir, to your speech in late March of 2009 when you stated that you had not been able to understand the workings of our economy while you were campaigning because you ere to busy fretting over Iraq and Afghanistan.

So let me get this straight. You ran for President, facing down the most numerous group of candidates ever assembled on the Democratic ticket, you had a team in place that understood the rules of every state and every primary where you Had to go head to toe with Ms Clinton, and you won.

And in early October you rounded up the other needed Democratic Senators to help Mr Bush pull off his Bailout of the Upper One Percent, and yet you never considered the economy? Do you take us for complete fools, Mr Obama?

The Progressives ar enot some small number of people. We are sixteen percent of the voting public. Combine us with those who used to vote for the Republicans, and should we find a candidate to agree on (A ron paul- Dennis kucinich ticket would be fine by me) you might see yourself outsed just as George the Elder was.

But hey, you're on good terms with a lot of those people by now. When your war crimes in Afghanistan rival those of Bush the Younger's In Iraq, maybe you can have the Bush family help you find yourself a groovy place in Paraguay.

ON HEALTH CARE - You have done so much hand wringing about the nasty Repugs - but had you not made so many concessions with them to begin with, you would not have wasted the tremendous and overwhelming mandate that was handed to you on Election Night 2008. Sixty two percent of all the voters in this nation wanted you on board and at the helm. How in the world did you manage to squander all that enthusiasm?

But rather than run with what they wanted (To this day, over seventy five percent of all Americans want soem version of SIngle Payer Universal hC and you used to want it too, circa 2004)

So by MArch 2009 You say you didn't understand the economy - or so you claim in your March 2009 speeches.
And how is it that by December 2008, you had selected the name of Tim Geithner for the Position of Secretary of Treasury. Did you pull his name out of the Magic Presidential Hat?

Even if you didn't have a lot of time on your hands to figure out whom you should give the Secretary of Treasury position to, maybe you could have spent five minutes on Google. Then and there you would have found out that Tim was someone who totally F-Cked the Japanese when the IMF sent him over to the Far East in the nineties.

Would it be so hard for you to just sit down and "google" some of this stuff once in a while.

Or maybe that is the point - you don't need no "google" - you got the IMF Top Dogs telling you how to play the game.

Like I said, Paraguay may well be your legacy.

[Yuugal]

108. +1

[Mithreal]

121. Agreed, the one with the most dollars usually wins though.

[Vidar]

97. Obama will make a fine insurance shill when he's done in politics.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

104. This administration simply

sickens me.

:puke:

[Overseas]

106. Very very sad. Expecially since Medicare is a blend of public and private elements.

Medical services PRIVATELY DELIVERED, between you and your doctors.

Cost accounting PUBLICLY ADMINISTERED, accountable to all in a transparent government.

He couldn't even praise that excellent mixture of public and private elements that has the lowest overhead and highest patient satisfaction in America and is very popular in Canada and is called MEDICARE.

[slipslidingaway]

107. knr n/t

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[liberal_at_heart]

112. He has made it abundantely clear he does not want progressives' support

And that's okay. If he doesn't want our support we can find someone else.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Juche]

113. Sigh. Obama supported single payer in 2004

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



I don't know anymore. I just know I don't trust him or know what his principals are (or if he has them).

I really supported Obama, and will vote for him again in 2012. But for a guy who openly say he supports single payer in 2003/2004 then to write it off as president shows either he has no courage or no convictions.

If Obama said 'single payer is the best option, but not politically realistic' that would be fine. But he didn't say that. He wrote off the idea 5 years after publicly supporting it.

He is fundamentally just another politician. And us young people were duped into thinking we'd get something better than that. Live and learn.

[Mithreal]

123. Obama isn't looking back.

Some folks say all sorts of things to climb the ladder.

[democracy1st]

115. K & R

[pleah]

124. K&R

[Cal33]

130. It's hard to believe that Obama is personally not for the

single-payer system. Very likely he thinks that it's not possible to get single-payer
through at this time, so what would be the next best thing to do?

As for your:
<< By damning ?government bureaucrats,? Obama played right into the hands of the
anti-government crowd and made any durable expansion of health care coverage all
the more difficult. He also insulted every single federal employee in the Medicare
and Medicaid and VA and Indian health programs. >>

He'd also be insulting himself, wouldn't he?

[defendandprotect]

133. Obama knows we're close to a depression and he also knows the impact of

health care costs/concerns on our economy and our government -- and our citizens --

Hard to think that even Obama believes what he's saying . . . because his health care

bill is another give-away to insurance companies.

Ironic how Democrats and our own president seem to somehow be constantly on the side

of corporate profit vs economic stability.

Ironic or predictable given corporation contributions????

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[Enthusiast]

136. Thing is, it's a myth

that he would expend political capital on a robust public option. Including a robust public option would have bolstered his popularity which equates political capital.

Including a robust public option would, however, cause him to lose insurance industry support. IMHO

[Vinca]

138. Anyone who thinks single-payer would be a bad thing for this country

is either ignorant or pandering to big insurance.

[donco6]

139. It's the only solution that makes any sense at all.

Remove the middleman (insurance). Provide direct health care. We don't need to pay to have access to piles of cash - that we provided in the first place.

[amborin]

144. more here on how Obama is pushing GOP goals:

"If you want to know where conservatives in Congress get all their ridiculous talking points about how dysfunctional the federal government is, how incapable the public sector is when it comes to doing anything right and, above all, how worthless federal employees are, we've tracked down the source.

It's not Rush Limbaugh.

It's not Michael Steele.

It's Barack Obama.

The president, who was once an ardent advocate for repairing are broken health care system by developing a single-payer "Medicare for All" program, now rejects the wisdom he expressed before moving to Washington.

As recently as 2003, Obama told an AFL-CIO gathering in Illinois: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what (another speaker) is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out -- single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan."

Yet, after excluding single-payer advocates from his health care summit, the president explicitly rejected the option when he delivered a March 3 speech pressing for final action to enact some sort of health care reform.

Just as his speech dismissed "Party of No" Republicans who want to "loosen regulations on the insurance companies," Obama took a swipe at the real reformers with whom he once stood in solidarity.

"On one end of the spectrum, there are some who have suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with government-run health care," the president declared. "Though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic."

The president is wrong about what is practical or realistic.

Those "other countries" he mentions are industrialized democracies that budget analysts and physicians have long argued that, by expanding access to care while cutting costs, a "Medicare for All" plan would improve the competitive position of U.S. industries in global markets.

But the president is even more wrong to dismiss a single-payer response as unworkable because of some supposed flaw in the DNA of the public employees who would implement real reform.

"I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America," declared Obama.

So the president is equating career civil servants – like the folks who organize the military's health care, services for veterans, the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs, the Indian Health
....."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/537639/why_is_barack_obama_writing_gop_talking_points

[sabrina 1]

157. Sad, isn't it? He saw no reason why the US could not have

a single payer system, but now he says 'it's not practical'. And there are people who do not question this major flip-flop, who are willing to overlook it because he has a 'D' after his name! No wonder we have the government we have. Both parties know they can abuse the American people and they will just lie down and take it.

[amborin]

161. exactly! Dems should support genuine democratic principles, not party or personality

[emsimon33]

145. Obama is such a sell-out. The 2010 election will be a blood bath for the Democrats

Except for progressive Democrats who actually represent the people.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

178. This thread is a train-wreck.

The number of deleted messages make it clear that some can't handle the truth.

I WANT government-sponsored health care. Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care.