Tue, 10/07/2008 - 11:41am — DCblogger
Single-payer folks still determined
Conyers spoke to me that evening about how he thinks a national health care plan is inevitable - because every other plan has led the country into dead ends. Click here to listen to the interview.
»
- DCblogger's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
John Conyers doesn't need to tell me that.
He needs to tell and push Obama. I notice the Obama ads being replayed talk about his mother dying at 53 and beng more worried about paying the bills than the cancer. But he doesn't give me the impression that he'll get it passed because other priorities might get in the way. And of course he continues with the *we have to change the way Washington does business and stop letting lobbyists dictate policy.*
No wonder I'm skeptical.
Obama already throwing health care under the bus?
Anglachel went and read his statement on the bailout and found this telling line, among much else which is no more encouraging:
Sounds like he's asking us to be prepared to wait...
dulce et decorum est ...
... pro faenerator mori.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
To be fair...
the next paragraph says this:
[My bolding]
The problem I'm trying to work out in my head is what, exactly, he has in mind by "relieve the crushing burden of health-care costs".
HR 676 does save money (I'm convinced), but IIRC the expansion of Medicare is covered by progressive payroll taxes (Obama would have to explain the savings) and there are also costs associated to the transition. So he'd have to sell a new tax (which, yes, would end up costing everyone less than they pay now).
I'm not saying it's worthless to push him on this. (Although I do kinda feel that way.) I'm just not encouraged, since he has always seemed to be not a fan of single-payer in the first place, and he now seems to be setting us up for a scaling-back of his already weak-tea proposals.
Perhaps the argument we should make is that in these horrible financial times, we cannot afford not to have single payer? That drastic times call for courageous actions to protect people from being forced into bankruptcy, and so on?
Yes, it is LESS expensive to have UHC
Not more. We need it ASAP to help us through this.
For instance, a good percentage of foreclosures are caused by medical bills. People have to choose between paying mortgages and medical bills, with the fear that they won't get health care if they don't pay the bills, so they choose to let their homes go, with the ripple effect on down the line. (Makes me think of the ripple of evil on the Lewis Black show.)
Not to mention it's more difficult to hold a job to earn money to make mortgage payments if you are sick and can't get treatment.
In fact, I'm wondering if that by itself would make a big difference in the financial problems, especially if they also get rid of or heavily regulate all the gambling that has been going on in the financial part of the economy.
"the burden of crushing health care costs"
I think a more "progressive" frame would be access to health care, not cost, which strikes me as a frame that guarantees failed incrementalism.
Start from health care, and then the savings flow from making it universal.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Conyers needs to tell that to Obama
That's not the way he (Obama) is going in his latest commercials. Of course today is Tuesday so by tomorrow that might change, but I'm not holding my breath.
Saves money, too
Now, granted, it takes away money from some of the insurance countries, but that's like saying you're taking blood away from a vampire.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Who cares about saving money
when your only major legislative arm twisting is to rush through a trillion dollar bail-out with almost no public discussion beyond scare tactics?
This is how Obama will run his presidency. His first major work as leader of the Party (and, it seems, Senator) was to give us, not a shit sandwich, but just a good ol' fashion pile of shit. But I guess the piles of excrement will be a nice diversion from the weekly two minute hates we'll be having as we try to silence critics with charges of racism and disloyalty. Tell me again why I should consider tepidly voting for Obama rather than actively trying to get rid of him to prevent a meltdown of the Democratic Party?
Money laundering
I know this is OT, but I though lambert might be interested.
This was a hot topic here for months, wondering where Obamas money came from, well according to CBS News, via Cannonfire bogus donors have been discovered.
i can haz hillary nao?
with no bounds and no regard for consequence
Cut and paste from earlier. If this turns out to be more wide-spread *wink wink* we can accept it, no?
HR 676 saves money
Just keep reminding everyone that single payer would cost less than what we are doing now. We would save $350 BILLION a year, can we afford not to do it.
Which means
in three years, the bailout would be paid for (including interest and overruns).
It's an interesting way to pay for the bailout.
Even better, it would slow foreclosures
Since so many bankruptcies are caused by medical bills overwhelming people.
Why the hell did he go to bat for Obama then?
What bullshit.
can't afford not to
that is exactly the argument we should be making, but much of what we call private health insurance is paid for with federal tax dollars, any federal worker, from the president to the letter carrier, is covered by insurance paid with federal monies, the cost of the entire national health care plan is less than what we pay now in taxes, and would cover everyone. That is how much we are paying in administrative overhead and outrageous salaries for CEO parasites. Watch the video at the link I posted, we would pay less.
another thing that is still good about PBS
They have a series of documentaries on The Presidents.. Last night I watched the one on Jimmy Carter, who was pushing for national health care in 1976 while Reagan was against Medicare. Sigh.