That said, can we make sure that which ever Democratic candidate gets the nomination that they are forced by progressives (all of us) to fight hard for universal coverage?
That's a big problem. You know what you'll get with McCain...nothing. Hillary has already said that, if necessary, your wages will be garnished to the enrichment of the insurance corporations...her best buddys. Obama is a bit more nebulous, but he talks a better game against the corporations. I preferred Edwards Universal plan, and I still have some hope of an Obama/Edwards ticket since Hillary made herself toxic.
I'll take a chance with Obama since I know exactly what we'll get with a centrist Hillary. I saw it in the last Clinton administration. It wasn't that good.
Posted by phidipides at April 20, 2008 08:33 PMActually, what you will get with McCain is not nothing. will be worse than what exists now. Thanks for the anti-Clinton smear. It's that attitude that ensures we don't get Universal Health Care.
Posted by jeter at April 20, 2008 08:54 PMAfter I read an op-ed in the LATimes, I am beginning to wonder if Clinton and Obama's plans are constitutional. If you mandate people to buy healthcare from private companies, that's a law making private citizens beholden to a privately owned company. That's different from, say, car insurance, because there is no law requiring you to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. But if you are alive and living in the U.S. you would be required to buy some kind of health insurance under both plans.
A better solution would be for healthcare to be paid for from a taxed program, essentially cutting out the private health plans. No?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 20, 2008 09:00 PMAsk not what you can do for your country; ask what you can do to pillage Hillary's village.
Posted by onar at April 20, 2008 09:09 PMHeh,
can we make sure that which ever Democratic candidate gets the nomination that they are forced by progressives (all of us) to fight hard for universal coverage?
There is no way to force a candidate to change his agenda. Besides, those who vote for Obama are voting for his half-ass coverage.
Posted by Prabhata at April 20, 2008 09:23 PMA better solution would be for healthcare to be paid for from a taxed program, essentially cutting out the private health plans. No?
Yep. Drives costs to 4% rather than the 30% the insurers take now.
Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what you can do to pillage Hillary's village.
Nope. Bill's already done that...and moved on.
Posted by phidipides at April 20, 2008 09:25 PM""Two, maybe three days ago, universal health care was a pillar of Democratic policy, and common ground between the two candidates. And now, according to Stoller, for one candidate the policy has fxxxxxg crumbled into nothing. You might think that might give Stoller pause, maybe even make him rethink his support, maybe make him stop at the brink… But no! Stoller’s in the air!
If I had to guess, I’d pick global warming." h/t corrente
Wonder what else Barry Obama will give away.
Mary, The Swiss have a single payer health coverage not universal as many of y'all see it. That coverage still has it's various levels of care. The Swiss model is the more desirable of health care models. For Canada reeks and the NHS practice with dental coverage has very recently been in the news.
"Many NHS dental patients in England are being forced to pay for private care, go without treatment or even pull out their own teeth, a survey suggests." BBC
Half the country can't get an NHS dentist - and haven't had any treatment for two years
Last updated at 00:37am on 18.04.08 This Is London
Jan 24, 2008 – A survey for the Citizens Advice Bureau, published earlier this month, showed that an astonishing one third of us go without treatment as it becomes more and more difficult to find an NHS dentist. The study showed millions waited more than 20 months for an appointment before either going to a private dentist or going without dental treatment. Link
The NHS have many other problems, doctor shortages, lack of enough beds. And in Ottawa, the nation's capital, there was a case of appendicitis discovered at one ER, they had no surgeon on duty at 8PM. They called around and couldn't find any at the other hospitals in the city and ended up transporting the guy to Montreal for care. Heart work so routinely comes across from Canada to Detroit that they close the tunnels for the transport. Baby delivery is also a problem...many Canadian mothers have American babies...they had to deliver in North American hospitals.
peter, you are so full of shit. You should travel more instead of engaging in your pants pissing and xenophobia. You want tales of horror?
My sister was sent home in America while actively having a stroke because she didn't have healthcare coverage. She worked 30 years in healthcare, her corporation ended employer contributions, my sister couldn't afford the premiums and had to play the odds. She lost. When you assholes make your uninformed and stupid statements my desire is to make it so someone has to change your fucking diaper for the rest of your life so your family can file a medical bankruptcy and I can look at your worthless doorknob ass and grin.
I've worked the hell out of the American healthcare system to even begin to get my sister cared for. It's broken beyond belief.
Posted by phidipides at April 20, 2008 09:37 PMWhy is the Swiss plan called single payer? My daughter lives in Switzerland, she was forced to pick a plan, but she had a choice of plans. Isn't that exactly like Hillary's plan?
By the way, she loves her coverage.
Phid is probably accurate in his first comment, opining that Hillary's plan will be good for corporations. Which = stock market. Of course, that's another reason I support her over Obama or McCain.
You can follow how universal health care would fare in the US via googling Massachusetts. Here's a column on costs soaring way out of control just 2-years after the program has been implemented. Costs Soar for Mass. Health Care Law.
Another on longer wait times, In Mass., Universal Coverage Strains Care. If you call in to make an appt with Dr. Atikinson, she can see you in May, 2009. Noice!
At least the rest of us can preview universal health care by watching Mass...
Posted by Muck at April 20, 2008 11:03 PMThe fact that these countries provide universal care for less money than we spend per capita ought to be of interest to conservatives.
Posted by bob h at April 21, 2008 03:52 AMI was watching the Egyptian Foreign Minister on c-span yesterday. He stressed to his American press audience the point that ALL Egyptians can walk into any medical facility and receive free treatment. He was obviously relishing the idea that Egypt was more compassionate (not to mention moral) than America when it comes to its citizenry.
Strange Times.
Posted by becca at April 21, 2008 04:27 AMyou want anything done ..however incremental..it's gonna be done by a centrist..thats the way it is right now..that's the way it is..and it's not bill clinton's fault..you want to blame anybody blame reagan...elizabeth edwards backs hillary's health care plan..perhaps john edwards does too...for crying out loud..that in itself says something..
Posted by dennis at April 21, 2008 05:23 AMphidipides, a true single-payer is not only cheaper, it's Constitutional. The government can set up a Medicare-like plan to pay doctors for service. It strikes me (as per the LAT op-ed) that requiring me to pay a private company for health insurance is unconstitutional.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 21, 2008 06:53 AMFor those comparing the Mass Health care system to whatever could be acheived nationally is just plain bogus beyond belief. The effin Bush administration has often tied the hands of just what a state can do (ie negotiate for cheaper meds etc) so you can't compare apples to oranges.
That said, I watched the program and was amazed. Even Taiwan has universal healthcare yet we can't do it. I agree with you Mary if the Swiss can do it (and it sounds like it just barely squeaked by) then we can if we choose. Not one person interviewed wished to go back to the old system. And they said insurance companies can still make money by offering additional premium service type coverage (such as private rooms etc) to the masses. Although he did make a point that Drug companies were still doing well but that it may be due to the fact that many Swiss pharmaceuticals sell drugs to the US.
IN the end the choice is clear...do we as a moral value in our society feel that Health insurance coverage for all is a basic essential. I believe it is...too bad most repukes and corporations(and some dems)in this country only care about the few, the select, and the wealthy elite. And as you noted even the diehard conservative Swiss politician felt that this was a basic moral value and right of all citizens in a society.
And sorry a program without mandates for all just won't cut it. I'll defer to Paul Krugman on all the reasons why (costs actually rise because there's an uninsured pool of 15 million to cover). I also think Hillary is a bigger fighter and gets it on this issue (it's why Edwards, or at least his wife)hasn't endorsed Obama I believe ) more so than Obama. And to be perfectly honest opposite of phid it is the one reason I currently support Hillary. Having a plan is one thing, getting it passed is certainly another. I think she's kicking herself for not getting it done in the 90's and won't rest until she gets it passed. And centrist leaning Obama has already given up his ace in the hole at the negotiating table by saying it doesn't have to be mandatory for all.
Posted by emal at April 21, 2008 06:59 AMCosts Soar for Mass. Health Care Law.
Costs soared in Massachusetts because it is the exact same plan Hillary proposes...the exact thing to the letter that was acceptable to the republi-cons (Romney). It's the plan that's broken, not the concept of universal healthcare. But I am glad that you can relish profits made on the ill health of others.
...a true single-payer is not only cheaper, it's Constitutional.
Yes it would be. And if one reads the preamble of the Constitution, an imperative.
...and it's not bill clinton's fault...
Like shitty HMOs and NAFTA...not bill Clinton's fault. Like the blood bank debacle in Arkansas that brought down the ruling Canadian government...not clinton's fault.
...elizabeth edwards backs hillary's health care plan...
In Clintoon world that probably equates to John backing it.
...perhaps john edwards does too...
Hmm hmmm.
Phidy-cent, the Swiss model does seem to have a consensus here. Look to the north, Canada would be in a real problem without American health care being available to cover up their shortcomings. Doctor strikes, other health care worker strikes, lack of beds, overuse of the systems, law prohibiting private practice, many problems with their health care.
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Canadian Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week. Canadians wait an average of 17.9 weeks for surgery and other therapeutic treatments, according the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. The waits would be even longer if Canadians didn't have access to the U.S. as a medical-care safety valve. Or, in the case of fortunate elites such as Prime Minister Paul Martin, if they didn't have access to a small private market in some non-core medical services. Mr. Martin's use of a private clinic for his annual checkup set off a political firestorm last year.
Call it the hip that changed health-care history. When George Zeliotis of Quebec was told in 1997 that he would have to wait a year for a replacement for his painful, arthritic hip, he did what every Canadian who's been put on a waiting list does: He got mad. He got even madder when he learned it was against the law to pay for a replacement privately. But instead of heading south to a hospital in Boston or Cleveland, as many Canadians already do, he teamed up to file a lawsuit with Jacques Chaoulli, a Montreal doctor. The duo lost in two provincial courts before their win last week.
The court's decision strikes down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance and is bound to upend similar laws in other provinces. Canada is the only nation other than Cuba and North Korea that bans private health insurance, according to Sally Pipes, head of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco and author of a recent book on Canada's health-care system.
WSJ
Chaoulli v. Quebec
McClean's Magazine
These are just for Canada, there are more for the English NHS health care problems. Hey, I'm sorry for your sister and the gamble she made. There are horror stories with every health care system. Seems the Swiss, maybe the French, have the fewest number though. That, or they don't complain much. As far as rankings go...I seem to remember the French came in number one, Canada at 24th and USA at 30th. We can do better, one has to wonder how shear numbers might change those ranked above us.
Phidy-cent, the Swiss model does seem to have a consensus here.
Hey, at least the U.S. ranks above Slovenia according to the W.H.O.
And the myths you report. Stunning...yet so...republi-con of you!
You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.
Hey, I'm sorry for your sister and the gamble she made.
Not really a gamble at all. You people and the corporations held all of the cards.
Posted by phidipides at April 21, 2008 01:53 PMFrom the Department of Isn't It Pretty To Think So:
Can we make sure that which ever Democratic candidate gets the nomination that they are forced by progressives (all of us) to fight hard for universal coverage?
One has to laugh at Peter's concern-troll warning of the horrors of Universal Healthcare in other countries. Dental problems in England? Horrors! My God, my first response was "They get dental, too?"
Peter, you're an industry toad if anything. Anyone who has experience like I do with a major illness knows how broken our healthcare system is and how every thing you are warning against is currently or already has happened in the USA.
So please, I get so sick of dealing with this horrible for-profit mess of system on a daily basis that I call say to you is "fuck off" which does no good whatsoever but at least relieves some of the anger I have for the fear mongering about universal care you are propagating.
May you get sick and get to experience US healthcare in all its glory.
Posted by sickofthenoise at April 21, 2008 07:05 PMThere you go Paradox....someone wishing illnesses on others. Want to say anything?
Posted by peter at April 21, 2008 09:10 PM