single payer palmed

It breaks my mind the control corporate America exerts over the U.S. Congress. At a time when polls show that 60% of both the American public and health care professionals desire an effective single-payer health care plan that cuts the profiteers (insurance and pharmaceutical cabals) out of the loop, Senator Max Baucus’ hearings have no single-payer representatives. The fact that the single payer option isn’t even being voiced raises hard questions about who’s really in charge here. (HINT: It ain’t you unless you own a huge company, hide from taxes and keep all your money in the Caymans.)

Advertisements

46 Responses to “single payer palmed”

  1. The single-payer option sometimes sounds good. Of course, if you stick it to the pharma companies and insurance companies, you’ll force them to slash jobs. With fewer people able to afford the healthcare, who pays? The taxpayer.

    In this I have a problem whereby the government’s actions cause job loss, and further burdens the income-earners to pay for those who don’t contribute.

    The system we have is not broken due to these large companies (although if they straightened up a bit, we’d have a little more breathing room), it’s due to the millions that find other things to spend their money on rather than paying for the healthcare they use. Stand in line at the store and take a survey of the people buying cigarettes (who are much more likely to need care) how many have health insurance. The results are almost funny.

  2. cripsyduck Says:

    I know how we pay for it. We cut about a third out of the military budget and start paying not only for much needed improvements in Veteran’s care, but care for every citizen. It would take a huge burden off both businesses and taxpayers, and I’d bet the quality of care would improve. And we’d still have the largest military budget on the planet.

    Besides, if the job is incentivized to earn bonuses by denying claims then screw it anyway. The administrative cost of private health providers are through the roof compared to that of national plans like Canada’s, or even Medicare, for that matter.

    Of course, none of it is that simple, but the fact that single-payer options aren’t even being weighed is really disturbing.

  3. barndoor cowlegs Says:

    You said it pal, I’m all for single-payer, maybe it wouldn’t fly with the top, but IT SHOULD AT LEAST BE DISCUSSED.
    Not to say a lot of nay, but hey, I say nay a lot (naysayer)- Obama could influence this, he has consistently opposed having single-payer “on the table” despite claims that “everything is on the table”. Ah well, at least he says what he means, ya just gotta listen real hard.
    LOUDelf is just repeating the same old tired corporate issued talking points. There are plenty of jobs out there for health insurance workers, perhaps working at a hospital? maybe in the newly created socialized system? (The rich fucker ceos making millions don’t suffer from that kind of unemployment). And, despite the seemingly coherent argument of bootstrap freemarket crap about people affording their own healthcare and not smoking, it ain’t that simple LOUDelf, and you know it. Insurance is expensive, not all people who need it smoke, most of the time your boss doesn’t provide it, and noone gets adequate coverage. Single-payer would do a lot for preemptive care (I know you freemarketeers are all about preemptive stuff) And did I mention the millions of folks WITH healthcare that get fucked regularly? talk about bureaucrats deciding what works best for you-that’s what insurance companies do! just ask someone you know who had to either not get a procedure, or paid full price cuz the company decided for them. Single payer wouldn’t work that way (I know that wasn’t part of your argument, had to slip it in). So LOUDelf, you can say it Louder but that don’t make it right.
    Cripsy- lovin that you propose slashing the military budget, and support single-payer, you been reading the SP-USA platform or somethin?

  4. dogboy Says:

    Medical issues are hamstrung not just by insurance providers or big pharma. The doctors and lawyers have made the whole thing a bigger mess then the corps have. Doctors, with close to 100,000 in school loans to pay, massive malpractice premiums to pay, and very high staff cost to deal with just paper work; are on the virtual payrolls of most parma co’s to cover thier operating cost and make thier hugh incomes. The lawyers play both sides against the middle to make thier 3 figure billable hours. Single payer even when discussed never addresses these issues. When you are offering a universally need service that people will pay what ever for (what is your life worth to you or your loved ones) you get a service thats easily corupted. When gas got to $4 people stopped driving. How much will healthcare have to cost befor people would rather suffer than get treatment? There has been alot of comment from and sercumstancal evidence that government run health care (single payer) cuases long waits for needed procedures and even more denial of service especially the older you get. I’d like the Feds to be the responsable party for malpractice suites, seening as medican is a licienced profession (just like some finacial services) and a limit on dr’s pay (like ceo’s). Maybe subsidized education for medical professionals. My health plan, co pays 80%, I pay 20%, pays me 100 bucks a year for health screening and 50 to get a free no cost to me check up. And don’t even start with the unemployment thing I have been thier for 11 mo’s. It sucked but I got by with out any savings, no help from mom and dad, only unemployment. Those bitchin’ that they are in the shit with out a job el al maybe should not have rented or bought that cool and convinant house that they can’t afford. Did you have to have that PS3? Did you really check out that clunker befor you bought it? Did you have to buy those new clothes or should you have learned to sew? Heres a personally emotional one, did you have to send all your money on that adorable resque dog’s healthcare and feed it better than you eat? Its usually, and I speak from personal experiance, the person who fucked up thier life not the Feds or Wal-Mart or Exxon or whom ever you think you should blame for the cess pool you keep doing laps in.

  5. barndoor cowlegs Says:

    dog boy, it ain’t always a persons greedy or lazy choices that cause poverty, to assume so is terribly naive, we all need food, clothing and housing, I have yet to meet someone in my economic level (poverty) that has bought or rented a home more costly than their means. Lots of poor folks make food at home, plenty sew.
    A really big issue with this, since consumerism does apply to the working class (though maybe not as much as you claim) when people are of the (reasonable) mindset that they can do very little to change their economic situation, comfortable and expensive items are purchased if for any reason but to allow some sort of satisfaction with life. I can admit, this is a terrible thing, but the reasons for it go beyond ignorance or laziness or greed.
    Your query about how long it will be until health care is so expensive that people will stop getting treatment- this already happens, I do it, almost every person I know does it, been this way for a long damn time.

  6. just because you take personal responsibility for your decisions does not mean you are not getting screwed. these realities are NOT mutually excusive. those who intimate otherwise have a loose nut in their logic meter or are so married to a theoretical position that they won’t let reality interfere with the tidy scenario they have invested in – that is mental laziness of the first order and it is why this country is swimming in a cess pool of its own making.

    and to argue that we should not use the power of democracy to our advantage if we can is to deny ourselves the privileges we fall over ourselves to offer corporations, who bear no human responsibility for their decisions.

    years later and we are still so quick to regurgitate the crap we get from the teacher so we can get a nice pat on the head and a B+. pathetic.

  7. It was early and I had to work on Saturday so I rushed (no pun) my post. BC your more on point then I ended up being but to leave the docs and the lawyers (individuals of some import to the issue) out of the equation and just continue to beat on business entities ( large faceless groups with share holders who demand a return on thier individual and group investments) is as narrow a logical view as SH is proposing in his post. If its group corruption as opposted to individual coruption then in essince were all in a great big conga-assdiggin’-line. Gotta go, my corporate masters require that I log in to my van so I can get paid and eventially go see a doctor, if I want or not. My choice.

  8. barndoor cowlegs,

    So eloquently put…

    But seriously. The United States is not about socialism. As a matter of fact, most of the people in this country came here (or are decendents of those who came here) to either escape the totalitarian rules of European societies which later embraced socialism, or for the opportunity presented by our free market system. To change over because you don’t like paying as much for your health insurance as someone else is pretty selfish at the least. It’s not a coincedence the US is the most wealthy and powerful country in the history of the world.

    Yes single-payer care is less expensive to the general person, but two things will happen with it: 1, the level of care will drop as people will not hold back on going to the doctor’s, and 2, the “rich fucker ceos making millions” will just go to private docs — you guessed it, the best of the best, who will no longer be available to the socialized system. Watching the failures of Canada and the UK, lead me to believe that the solution is more along the line of what dogboy mentioned that we need to curtail the frivoulus lawsuits that drive up the malpractice premiums (and also line the pockets of your enemy insurance companies). With that lowered cost, doctors/hospitals can reduce their charges, and more people will be able to afford the healthcare.

  9. barndoor cowlegs Says:

    all right Loudelf, I’m not gonna debate the finer points on what socialism is or isn’t, maybe another time. What I can say is that single-payer isn’t socialism, it might be socialized however-there is a difference.
    The reasons for needing single payer go a bit beyond not wanting to pay as much for healthcare as someone else. And even if it was, so what? aren’t less wealthy people allowed to want/need stuff at affordable prices? shouldn’t they be able to work towards a goal that better suits their (majority) need through democratic and activist processes? You are right that it is no coincidence that the U$ is the most wealthy and powerful country in the world- we do it at the expense of our own, and other nations’, people’s health and well being. but the wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of people, and they got that way by cutting a profit off of other peoples illnesses. Furthermore, the profit based health system seldom gives the kind of critical coverage that people need-and that’s just the folks who can afford it, poor folks get nothing.
    What exactly do you have to back up your assertion that the level of care will drop under a socialized system? Sure, more people will go to the doctor-how could that be bad? With a proper system, why would care have to be lacking?
    My comment about rich ceos was refering to insurance company moguls and how they won’t suffer from the demise of their scam. But you bring up a good point (though you misunderstodd what I wrote)- rich folks could still get extra coverage through private insurance, but with universal coverage, how would their care be any better? The doctors would be paid the same no matter who’s covering the bill.
    Your concern about Canadian and UK healthcare is brought up a lot, but what requires us to set up the same system? surely we can learn from (perceived) inadequacies in those systems and make them work for us.
    Finally, I can’t agree with much you say no amazement there, but I think you confuse the differences of care and insurance too much.

  10. barndoor cowlegs,

    You bring up a good point: “aren’t less wealthy people allowed to want/need stuff at affordable prices?” No, I don’t believe people should have their wants funded by the government (other people’s money). As for the needs, under the current system, uninsured people can go to the ER and get care if needed. We are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As no hospital can deny you care for emergencies, you are still covered under this.

    But to get back to your earlier point that there is a difference between socialized and socialism… this is plainly false. There is no difference. While free market has some flaws, socialism has more, and it is not a change I feel we should force a country to make that was founded as an escape to opportunity for anyone willing to work hard and be free.

    With universal healthcare, you wonder how someone could get better care? You’re kidding, right? When doctors have to get lumped into a system that does not reward them for exceeding expectations, opting to go the private route will drive most of the talent there. So the people with the private insurance will be getting the best doctors that would not be available to the general populace. That, I feel is far more dangerous than now, where doctors face stiff challenges, but your best and brightest are still available to the masses.

    I think your underlying arguments have more problems with profit and success than anything else. Is your dream to live in a society where it doesn’t matter how hard you work because you still get cared for, or is it to make it rich and be able to do what you want in business or in life? I know the honest answer, but the key is will you be honest with yourself on that one.

  11. cripsyduck Says:

    LOUDelf, your “logic” comes up way short. If you find a lump on your wife’s breast and head to the ER, what are they gonna say? “Come back when you’re bleeding. You’re on your own.” That’s not health care. The emergency room is for emergencies. If you wait until it blows up into full-blown cancer and head to the hospital, what are they gonna do? Give you a bed to die in and then write it off – TO THE TAXPAYERS!

    Besides, you’re wrong about the best and brightest in medicine. They’ve already left for research in the private industry. A good friend of mine sits on several med school entrance boards. The last time I saw him he lamented: “We’re gonna be taken care of by B students!”

    You’re wrong about socialism, too. Our fire department is socialized- free to all for taxes. Same with our police, our roads, our schools and OUR MILITARY.

    Socialism actually seeks the dissolution of the capitalist system, and they’ve got a good point. After all, modern cancers are largely the result of poisons wontonly inserted into our products – for PROFIT. Workers are routinely disposed of, their retirement flushed – for PROFIT. Countries enter into armed conflict for no logical reason – except for PROFIT.

    You righties crack me up. The country followed your elitist paranoid wrong-headed reactionaries for the past thirty years and what did it get? Infinite debt to the Chinese. Expensive private prisons full of pot smokers. Wal-mart instead of mom and pop. Successfully attacked by cave dwellers. Six month wars that last six years, an economy in the tubes, no international respect and no self respect. Now Glenn Beck helps you get off one racist rally and you think we SHOULD ALL GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU THINK. Hilarious!

    And the best part is, you probably think you’re a Christian! Where exactly did Christ say “go to war and screw the poor?”

  12. cripsyduck,

    Our military is socialism? This is good. YOUR “logic” falls way short. You lefties crack me up, (unfortunately I’m no righty for you to rail against). You find profit as evil. Again, America is the land of opportunity. Most of our decendents are here either because they knew they had a chance to make their own success, or were fleeing the totalitarian European regimes where the government was controlling business and services. Sound familiar?

    Why is it that the US is the most powerful economic force in the history of the world? Not because of socialism, but because of a dedication to reasonable free-markets and the spirit of personal responsibility. This is called motivation… something severly lacking in socialist societies.

    Personally, I have no anger towards those more successful or affluent. Instead, I look to them for a road map for my own successes, and try to beat them at their own game. But, it seems others here seem to have the opposite: Disdain for success, and the sense of entitlement. These two feelings never equate to success or progress.

  13. LOUDelf said: “It’s not a coincedence the US is the most wealthy and powerful country in the history of the world.”

    You say that like it’s a good thing. Typical Westerner seduced and deluded by fantasy ideals.

    Barndoor said: “I’m not gonna debate the finer points on what socialism is or isn’t”

    Oh, please do…

    Barndoor also said: “but the wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of people, and they got that way by cutting a profit off of other peoples illnesses.”

    Bravo, BC, bra-freakin’-vo!

    Cripsy said:”The last time I saw him he lamented: “We’re gonna be taken care of by B students!”

    TELL me about it….healthcare in the U.S. SUCKS!

    Maybe I’m the only person lurking around here who has firsthand experience with both kinds of healthcare systems. Let me tell you about my experience with healthcare while living in London: There was a clinic in every neighborhood. When you needed to be seen, you simply walked in and were seen quickly. There was no grilling about your HMO and who covers what or why. And then, luxury of all luxuries, you were ushered straight into the doctor’s office and you saw the DOCTOR, not a bunch of nurses, you actually got to sit down with the real doctor right off the back. Also, English doctors were open to holistic and organic approaches because they weren’t the lackeys of Big Pharma. And I found the quality of the care I received in England on a par if not better than what I’ve gotten in the U.S. Just to be treated humanely rather than as a chart # makes so much difference psychologically.

    Give me socialized medicine any day!

  14. cripsyduck Says:

    Once again, SOCIALIZED is not SOCIALISM. You’re gonna have to get these two straight. Try a dictionary.

    Also, the unchallenged assertion that “the US is the most powerful economic force in the history of the world” is patented bigotry and not really historically accurate. (equivalent to my high school is way more bichin than your high school OR my dad can kick your dad’s butt)

    The US has almost no power other than the capacity to throw a wicked awesome military temper tantrum every now and then and maybe tell the U.N. that it better not make fun of Israel. Oh, and to buy plastic crap at a big box store.

    Maybe you’re confusing so-called U.S. business interests with the U.S. itself. But when these companies don’t pay taxes in the U.S., don’t keep their money here, don’t employ U.S. citizens, lobby against regulations that would protect the U.S. and generally don’t give a shit about the U.S. or its people, well, at what point do you stop being proud of your home team?

  15. Angel,

    Yes, it’s a good thing. The alternative is not being any of those. I’ll take the positive over the negative any day.

    And you’re VERY lucky if in England you just walked into a clinic and were seen right away. This is an extremely rare case. The UK’s care is quite good, but there’s a reason why people from all over the world come to the US for medical procedures…

  16. cripsyduck,

    so·cial·ize (ssh-lz)
    v. so·cial·ized, so·cial·iz·ing, so·cial·iz·es
    v.tr.
    1. To place under government or group ownership or control.

    You don’t find this similar, if not exactly like socialism? I think you should focus more on substance, than ALL CAPS.

    “The US has almost no power other than the capacity to throw a wicked awesome military temper tantrum every now and then”

    You’re right. So when the US has an economic downturn, the rest of the world doesn’t join it? Name one other country that has that effect on world markets. I rest my case. The US IS the most powerful economic force in the history of the world. And yes, it can throw a military tantrum, but doesn’t that cost a lot of money to maintain? Not one other country in the world currently could support the level of spending that the US does on military. Not China, not any other without seriously cutting back on other things. Again, it proves the point.

  17. cripsyduck Says:

    Yes, a military tantrum costs A LOT, and it’s coming out of our pockets, and it’s not on the books. But the military is a service the country requires, group owned and under government control, and is, therefore, SOCIALIZED. (caps added for emphasis, thank you very much) But it’s still not Socialism.

    You see, Socialism is a philosophy that believes businesses should be under the direct democratic control of their employees. Socialism declares that the profit motive is the cause of the majority of the world’s suffering and almost all injustice. Socialism is an actual platform and a political party. And many countries that have strong Socialist movements are doing quite well. I do not subscribe to the party doctrine, but there are those up here who do, and they generally don’t like being equated with your local socialized police force.

  18. cripsyduck,

    As an FYI, the US is a mixed, but mostly capitalist system. Socializing industries IS moving toward socialism. This is not something positive as we don’t look to government for efficiency, or because they are without corruption.

    Your contention that “the profit motive is the cause of the majority of the world’s suffering and almost all injustice” is laughable. Tell that to the people of China, the Soviet Union, or any other predominantly socialized country. In fact, ask them why they started to move away from the system they were in. Ask them how wonderful their people were treated.

    Profit motivated people to better their lives. Humans are inherently selfish, so with many the greater common good means nothing. Socialism is a wonderful theory — people working together and no one gets less than the next guy — but with humans involved in the mix, we’ve found that it fails.

    But answer me this: If the government takes over these systems, and they fail, who then bails the government out?

    Our government’s business is protecting our safety of person and property. If they get involved in the business of business, they can and will fail with costly results (see US Postal service).

  19. cripsyduck Says:

    I’m sorry? The Post Office is still the cheapest way to get a piece of paper from one end of the country to the other. And it’s fast, too.

    I suppose you’re elated at G.W.’s idea to dump what remained in the treasury into the financial sector? A plan which Obama continues? The “Free Market” (no such thing) really took care of its own there. Give ’em enough deregulatory rope and they’ll hang themselves. Unfortunately, the government keeps reviving the bastards.

    Ask any Social Security recipient if their checks are on time. On time, every time. Like clockwork.

  20. there’s a lot of talking at cross purposes here, and most of it larded with a few self evident truths fallaciously used to prop up illogical arguments. But it s pretty fun in a train wreck kinda way (i.e. until you have to pick the bodies up of the tracks. ) hopefully none of us will ever be elected supreme emperor.

    at the heart of this discussion is the intersection of health care and profit, and this has led to one of the the nifty little tornadoes of dueling circular logic that blogs are good at fostering. we could just agree to disagree, or we could just stick to refuting minor points in one an others posts in condescending tones (more fun).

    before I get back to that, its worth pointing out that our government has never not had taxation as a part of its methodology. (the income tax, which has ruined our federal governments balance of power is relatively old (16th amendment?, 18th? something like that…) as soon as the government decides how to use that money, you have a collective system of some sort, call it what you will. the debate is over what to spend that money on, and to settle that debate we have chosen the democratic system of voting. so if the majority of the voters perceive that the economy is skewed against their success and vote to give themselves health coverage more power to them.

    clearly the governments business is, in practice, more than protecting our safety and our stuff, or at least our definition of safety is very flexible. e.g. the gov. allows a corporation the right to pollute in order to make electricity with a certain profit margin and in exchange we get cheap electricity. this does not make us safer. this does allow us to consider buying a whole range of products that would be very impractical if electricity costs what it would if we did not poison ourselves to produce it. who benefits? well, you could argue that we do because we have this cool stuff. however, time and again we find that on a practical level it does not make us more happy or safe or really, anything, except perhaps in debt and isolated from our neighbors. But it makes jobs! well, not really for us, because to pay a living wage to make this stuff would also price it out of our range so we have to align our national interests with nations that enslave their citizens in order to produce our stuff with a sufficient profit margin for the vulture class in that country. ditto for the raw material extraction needed for these goods and the poisoning of the planet – its “too expensive” to do it another way. so this makes a lot of us sick, not safe. And the jobs we get are mostly selling this stuff and no matter what we make we can’t make enough. but we do get to choose whether to buy an i pod or pay the doctor. so we do have a choice, but our choice comes so far down the line of choices, below all these other choices that are made for us and not in our best interests by the people ahead of us in line (the ones who are “more equal”). but everyone can hold out hope that they too can become a captain of industry! well, not really because there is not enough to go around at that level so you have to throw someone off the bus to get your seat, and those on the bus know that and they keep it pretty secure thank you very much. but there is still a chance. and, dad gum it, that chance is all any red blooded United Statesian could ever ask for! the chinese vulture class is the same as the american vulture class is the same as the european vulture class is the same as the african vulture class, etc. they just use slightly different methods to exert their control and assure that the “choices” left those on the bottom do not interfere with their ability to make bank and continue to rule. Communist pig, Capitalist pig…tastes the same. what we need is not an inane argument about fake capitalism vs. fake communism, we need to choose to stop being such pigs.

  21. cripsyduck Says:

    Hear, hear!

  22. I thought I had to put ‘Fester’ away but it looks like he may have a new playmate.

    BC is a seriously and dedicated old school socialist. He means what he says and you got to admire someone who knows fully and articulately expresses his position on the socio-political spectrum, even if I disagree. He has my full admiration. Too bad LOUD elf, who said “You lefties crack me up, (unfortunately I’m no righty for you to rail against)” hasn’t the balls to accept and admit that he is either a conservitive or a libertarian.

    It burns me that the evangelicals (by which I mean those who used to normal folk who my have on occasion over indulged in whatever substance and then had some life changing event, and not wanting to do what their parents did, do joined some holy roller “rock & roll” churches(you know the ones that spend the better part of 250 grand for a pa that would make any musician worth his salt blush) just to have these former lush wanna be pro players get up and rock out, and who get together and instead of trying to out “look how cool I ,my kids, my family is” with the trivial social shit happening at any gathering of humans, they try and out pious each other. and on and on.) have taken over the moniker of conservatism. The idea of separation of church and state (which is not in the constitution because the founders figured seeing as that’s one of the high points for founding this country it didn’t need to be) is not to ban religion as these fuckers are trying to convince everyone it does but to keep your moralist fucking nose out of my fucking personal ass and mine out of yours! Evangelicals are not conservatives!

    “And many countries that have strong Socialist movements are doing quite well”. Please Sir Duck who would that be who is doing very well?

    “But answer me this: If the government takes over these systems, and they fail, who then bails the government out?” That would be those who have guns, and those who support those who have guns. Against the greatest military force of the time a bunch of coon hunters up and down the east cost created the conditions for the successful founding of the worlds most “evil” country to ever advance the condition of man. The average living conditions for humans advanced more in the last 200 years than all the advancement that had accrued in the previous 2000. This is not open to debate, whether this advancement was for good or ill, when there are satellite dishes and running water in the Sahara there has been a hell of a lot of advancement in a short period of time. The US post office is the cheapest and most efficient mail system on the planet. Most likly because it’s subsidized by the gov. and stamps are 75% of the average cost for mail in the rest of the world. Stamps should be a dollar.

    If you are unaware that the professional politician is the root of all evil, corruption and other foul things, fuckin wake up. TERM LIMITS ya dope.

    Rachael Carson and those that followed have fucked us all under the gauss of saving us all. Who could be against saving the children, planet, a flea? If DDT didn’t exist than the most coastal areas of the planet would be malarial swamps which would make the beach front value and Manhattan, Boston, Chicago, LA a big fat nothin’. Wichita, it just doesn’t sing like Hollywood does it?

    Nothin motivates a human like the chance at fast bucks. Go hang out at a quickie mart on a Friday between 5-6 pm when the megalottoball is up to 100 million. Count the number of tickets sold vs. the number of people through the door. You can and will never legislate away greed. The people voting are the greediest of us all. Get elected, fart out of your mouth for 4-6 years and voila, you’re a millionaire. Just how does that work anyway?

    If you don’t want to be a “pig” (I know you’ll continue to be baffled at my idiocy but what does that mean anyway?) than good for you. You gonna eat that? Talk about “evident truths fallaciously used to prop up illogical arguments”. You take the cake. Ever read “Free to be you and me”? I’m sure you can find it in big print. I have what I need and more stuff that I wanted. May be we should all come by and grab some of the stuff you have that you don’t really need. You obviously don’t need to have any technology that allows you to access the internet. You can walk can’t you? So that evil transportation device, could be a bike or a hang-glider, could go to some one who wants it and just can’t afford to buy one right now. OH its commerce you can’t stand right? Well I hope some one is willing to give you enough seed to grow all the food ……Go ask anyone how much fun it was living on a commune which it was if you had never experienced anything else but which they would choose now. Buy organic at the farmers market (hay its commerce) or the work it takes to grow enough to sustain you and yours.

    All of the subject matter here has been debated since the 50s and the refusenicks keep coming up with different ways to say the same thing. They hate what their parents did to them and their looking for payback. What a waste of time and an awful way to live your life. But I know most here are actually happy well adjusted people who, do to social norms and pressure of their respective communities, are holding up the belief system of their communities. It’s all about fitting in and getting along. No matter how wise we think we have become the rules of the school yard are always in effect.

    God I hate people, the cause of and solution to all the worlds’ problems. 2 years and 9 or so months left so lets keep at it so we won’t notice the fiery rock from space until its, thank god, too late. Yea, I’ll sleep when I’m dead. Finally!

  23. cripsyduck Says:

    what?

  24. barndoor cowlegs Says:

    whoa, you guys have really been going at it, I’m away from the internet for 24 hours and blammo!
    So wish we could get back to healthcare- single-payer style, and why or why not that would be great. It seems the argument against has turned from substance to “it’s socialism and that’s bad!” tough point to try to make with this crowd, as hopefully I have educated them somewhat as to what it means.
    So, to clarify- socialism, as it is defined and accepted by leftists DOES NOT necessarily mean government ownership, it means citizen and worker ownership through democratic processes, as in the bailouts and govt stake in business is not socialism as it has nothing to do with citizen or worker control, and only benefits the rich and those politicians who were lobbied hard to endorse it. A planned economy is only that- a state planned economy- that can mean a variety of different systems, some would argue that the U$ already has a somewhat planned economy, despite the deliberate assertion that there is some “free” market.
    cool, glad we can get through that one.
    (Loudelf, perhaps there is a better forum to debate the benefits of socialism vs. capitalism- perhaps the post on the site here “why Obama isn’t a socialist”)
    Now howsabout single-payer, I really think that SH nailed it- that if we, through the democratic process, decide we want universal coverage, why shouldn’t we give it to ourselves?
    It is my understanding that most doctors think that single-payer is the best option, more than a majority of citizens support the idea, shit I even know some republicans who support the idea, why shouldn’t congress and the prez discuss it? If there are enough folks like loudelf to not endorse it, it doesn’t happen, but at least discuss it!!!

  25. if you are so big on freedom of choice, Doggie, why do you oppose letting the people choose to be represented by professional politicians in perpetuity if they so vote?

    as the the rest of your post, I’ll pick at it later if I get time. I can see the libertarian in there struggling to be understood – good for you, there are some good points buried in there, they just have too narrow a view of human rights for my taste. Cheers!

  26. “The Post Office is still the cheapest way to get a piece of paper from one end of the country to the other. And it’s fast, too.”

    How many billions do we have to give to FedEx or UPS on top of what they charge us? If the USPS were a model of efficiency, we the people wouldn’t have to fund billions to it every year. Since October, it has lost nearly $2bil (over $600 per person in this country), and guess who gets to pay for this? Again, I look at them as a model of what happens when the government is involved in business. The government needs to be the safety net, not the front line. When it fails, we’re all in trouble. But this is the ‘socialized’ model.

  27. Dear Sir Sherlocky El Homey, my good sir,
    I would support that kinda federal public referendum on term limit or not to but under the constitutional construct that would be whats called amending the constitution and that gets dicey. There are already a couple states that have term limits on goveners. I don’t know the circumstances behind the legilation in the states, bill by elected reps or state wide referendum, item on a ballot, special whatever, but as a representitive democracy, from municipal to the federal level, how ever issues are decided and put in force, on whatever level, is democratic. I have never opposed people having the right to do as they will, too bad they make so many poor choices based on half heard, half true, half remembered, half twisted, half baked, and fully taken advantage of by the pro poli sci guys supposedly factual, accurate and unbiased statemaents. They repeat the same discription at those who disagree and have so little true self awareness not to see the same in themselves. All I have espoused is the notion of term limits as a solution, and I beleive a very potant solution, to alot of the issues we give the smack down to on the Ducks cyber back porch. At least I’m not waking the neibors here.
    As you may well know I tend to the rambly stream of semi concusness thought and writing pattern that may be partially based on half heard, half remembered, half true, half twisted, half baked thoughts gathered from various sources, as best I can restate them, as I come to a conclusion as to what I think, and translated poorly to the written word. This last point is especially a concern to me as our host, who hast prodigous talent in this area, and still Sir Duck allows us lesser mortals blather along on this post.
    Maybe our host could frame a leaping off the cliff point to stir our positions what is and is not and what should be on the all encompassing list of “human rights”, “animal rights”, and “planetary rights”?
    And Cheers! to you may friend.

  28. Please give the dyslexic a pass on all the poor spelling. Try the word phonetically? if you can’t figure it out.

  29. barndoor cowlegs Says:

    off topic again folks!
    communication via the mail was determined a long time ago to be a necessary service for this country, the postal service remails in existence still because it serves the common good. Perhaps we could think about other things that serve the common good that might be worth not handing over to the market. Fire departments, police departments, maybe health care? electricity would be good…
    the point is, some things are important enough to run in the red at times, how often has your police department cut a profit? public transportation often works this way, and it is healthy to our nation to have a working, cheap post office, even if it loses money.
    I posit that the health of our nation should be treated as such, and most would say, in the long run (taxes and all) universal single-payer coverage will be cheaper for the U$ than the current system(s)

  30. I don’t argue that it will be cheaper or more efficient, I simply say that it is a way for the Fed to be inefficient that I prefer to the ways they are inefficient now. stop paying for the drug war, stop paying to imprison more people per capita than any other nation, cut the military budget by at least 20%, stop subsidizing the false notion that certain businesses are “too big to fail,” and give me a crappy, state run health care system that I can supplement out of my pocket if i want/can.

  31. Would a state run system have allowance for consumer paid additional services?

  32. cripsyduck Says:

    I don’t see why not. Every country with socialized medicine has that option.

  33. barndoor cowlegs Says:

    if we could set it up right, there wouldn’t be much demand for extra coverage, do members of congress feel the need to have other coverage? Just sayin’, if we all pay for it (through taxes, some more, some less) and we all get full coverage including mental and dental, why would you pay for more of the same?

  34. The doctor I go to here in Mayberry gives you a 20% discount if you pay cash instead of using your insurance. For certin visits I’d like to be able to continue to pay them that way. Would single payer eliminate that option?

  35. cripsyduck Says:

    Probably. You’d have to opt for the 100% discount. Sorry.

    Additional insurance would be for things like if your collagen implants were defective, or your penis enlargement went retrograde.

  36. I grew up in a military family. The best health care I have had in my 43 years, was the military single payer system. If you needed medical attention you went to the hospital or clinic and showed your ID card and you got good service. I know folks will say–well look at all the problems with the VA. True, but that is not the same system that takes care of the active duty military. The acitve duty system is top notch.

    I hear people argue against single payer system because one will lose their freedom of choice. You will be forced to be seen by someone you do not feel comfortable with, oh my!

    If you do not have access to a doctor, the choice of which doctor you do not have access to is of little importance—especially if you are in critical need.

    I have worked with the poor and marginalized for the past 12 years, and my observation is—people without insurance have very little choice regarding their health care.

    So, I wonder, is the choice we are talking about really one of giving everyone access to decent health care vs. giving the wealthy allot of health care choices.

    Some will argue the personal responsibility trip and I can’t argue with them that most of us can try a little bit harder, but using the ER as a primary care provider costs us all allot of money. ER is the most common medical service used by the very poor. We will spend millions keeping the homeless guy at the ER. Why?

    Rich or poor we will all get sick at some point. We will also die at some point. For me the question is how do we do these things with a little less suffering and a little grace?

  37. barndoor cowlegs Says:

    well said ET,
    I have to say, the VA could run a lot better were it to be fully funded, same goes for medicare/medicaid. I guess it’s a matter of priorities.
    As for choices, this problem already exists under insurance companies, the company decides who you see, and what procedures are covered. I know a lot of folks who were “covered” but when it came down to it, critical procedures or tests were deemed unnecessary- can you imagine being insured, having appendicitis, and then being told the x-ray was unnecessary? This is the free-market and health care. I really think you nailed it with “giving everyone access to decent health care vs. giving the wealthy a lot of health care choices”
    good job!

  38. Here is some blog coverage of single payer slinging from the land of Max-sort of… (Missoula is different MT.)

    That said, even in the more rural parts of rural Montana, quite a few of the self employed and small business owners like the idea of s single payer system.

    http://4and20blackbirds.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/thanks-missoula-i-think-max-heard-us-today/

  39. cripsyduck Says:

    Nice one. He’s right. At what point do the Democrats start defending the people’s interests over those of their patrons?

  40. barndoor cowlegs Says:

    when have they ever?
    ahem, sorry couldn’t resist that jab, only partly true.
    They MIGHT at some point “start defending the people’s interests” when people exercise their right to participatory democracy by demonstrating and engaging in mass protest and mass action, that’s really the only hope.
    May 30 (this Saturday) large demonstrations will occur in a whole lot of cities. Though like a lot of things, doubtful the press will cover this.
    Go to http://www.healthcareNOW.org for info, they have been working hard on this.

  41. barndoor cowlegs Says:

    shit, sorry it’s
    http://www.healthcare-now.org

  42. cripsyduck Says:

    I don’t recall a time in modern U.S. history when mass protest ever had ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER. Millions gathered on the mall to protest the Vietnam war and it still went on for 6 more years.

    but you go on believing that if it makes you happy

    you’re gonna have to get Gandhian on their asses – be willing to die – and they’re still not gonna listen to you until the money’s all gone

    nonetheless, I’d march for single payer

    as long as I don’t have to join some snobby cult

  43. Re Mass Protests: How about the storming of the Bastille? That seemed effectual…

  44. barndoor cowlegs Says:

    the civil rights movement made great gains
    the dems won’t listen or act unless people make their voices heard.
    during the vietnam era, SOME, politicians listened and responded to popular protests, and the labor movement has made great gains in the past through marches and strikes.
    with civil rights in particular, people were willing to die in the non-violent Gandhian way.
    as for believing in protest and mass action, what’s the alternative? why even discuss the problems in the world if it’s all so hopeless?
    organizing people and expressing dissent doesn’t mean you have to join a snobby cult. The peace center is hardly snobby, SP is a political party based on democracy and participation, unlike the two main parties (whom I might call snobby)
    Healthcare-Now would be happy to include you in their effort

  45. Mass protest like the civil rights movement only get noticed or shall we say effectual if the press takes up the cause and then the politicians respond as not to get hammered in the press. Tiananmen Square is a good example. If the international press had not been in Beijing to cover Gorbachev meeting Deng Xiaoping (or what ever the lead Chinese guy at the time name was) and notified the world, the demonstrations would have not had the political impact that lead to the China of Buicks and making all the stuff we buy.

  46. cripsyduck Says:

    Great point. If the press doesn’t pick it up, then it basically didn’t happen. So how does one make one’s protest newsworthy? Or rather, how does one assure its newsworthiness?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: