General Discussion

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)

113. Uhm...

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 11:07 AM

Mar 2012

You are aware that even in the first article you cited there is a shift between the use of "care" in the first line which is used to refer to care in a few of the subsequent paragraphs to the term "universal coverage" in the fifth as though they represent the same thing. They really are not the same thing.

Additionally, the Health care program enacted is not even close to as useful or stringent as those controls that exist in Switzerland to garauntee care. It is really apples and oranges. The US allowed the insurance companies to dictate far, far too much of healthcare reform. While this is a bandaid, and a useful bandaid, it will ultimately fail to contain costs. Of course it is obviously better than the republican methodology of amputation or festering, but it really does not solve the underlying problems and assumptions.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

146 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Incredible: Single Payer way more popular than ObamaRomneyCare. [View all] MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 OP

du rec. nt xchrom Mar 2012 #1

The coverage of this issue is universally misleading lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #2

Lumberjack, I'm curious. Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #4

Because that is how Blue Dogs think. And that is why Blue Dogs need to be run out of the party. (nt) w4rma Mar 2012 #8

+1000 nt abelenkpe Mar 2012 #15

That's the Tea Party Strategy Richardo Mar 2012 #21

How is 70% Blue Dogs better? RC Mar 2012 #34

Seats Richardo Mar 2012 #71

Meaningless without policy kenfrequed Mar 2012 #111

That is one opinion. We don't have the backing of a few Billionaire and a full time propaganda Vincardog Mar 2012 #55

So you say that the republicans are a 170% political party Autumn Apr 2012 #141

The De Facto third party corporate supremacists would stand the most to gain. Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #10

He doesn't literally mean "designed." Loudly Mar 2012 #13

When the parties are as far apart as we are, there's no middle ground. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #59

They managed to mandate that woo me with science Mar 2012 #23

I believe you nailed it, woo me with science. Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #25

^^this^^ me b zola Mar 2012 #128

Say it again! bvar22 Mar 2012 #132

+100000 Well said and worth its own OP woo me with science Apr 2012 #133

Yes. Exactly. annabanana Apr 2012 #142

I think both Single Payer and the Public Option were out of the picture Jackpine Radical Mar 2012 #33

That is his tragic flaw. He gives a lot before he gets anything. If it is not deliberate it is sad Vincardog Mar 2012 #56

Harry and Louise were speaking for the smaller insurance companies eridani Mar 2012 #64

There were ways that COULD have worked. bvar22 Mar 2012 #105

The Republicans are already making themselves unelectable, so if you're right, and Jackpine Radical Mar 2012 #116

Then the voters allow that treestar Apr 2012 #135

People are obviously vulnerable to advertising. Jackpine Radical Apr 2012 #136

We can always ignore their ads or look at them critically treestar Apr 2012 #137

"We"--or many of us anyway--already do that. Jackpine Radical Apr 2012 #140

Agreed, that is the issue treestar Apr 2012 #145

In the long run, I think the free flow of information Jackpine Radical Apr 2012 #146

I agree, the corporate media don't believe in bringing up the issue of how for profit insurance Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #7

I see no reason CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #28

The millionaires and billionaires who are profiting by denying care oppose Medicare for all Vincardog Mar 2012 #58

The depressing aspect of the poll is that Progressives want to see the law fail. bluestate10 Mar 2012 #81

I Agree YOHABLO Mar 2012 #91

But I thought that Obama Care limited Insurance Company profits on health care coverage to 15% Walk away Mar 2012 #104

Actually, I believe it limits non-medical uses of premiums to 15%, including profit MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #106

There are two sides to this coin, however, l_j Doctor_J Mar 2012 #110

Krugman: Supreme Thoughts ProSense Mar 2012 #3

Same ole lie zipplewrath Mar 2012 #26

And Medicare premiums Sgent Mar 2012 #27

More ProSense Mar 2012 #30

And yet the law is very specific zipplewrath Mar 2012 #35

Really? ProSense Mar 2012 #37

It is not universal zipplewrath Mar 2012 #38

Well, ProSense Mar 2012 #40

Prove it zipplewrath Mar 2012 #43

Speaking ProSense Mar 2012 #44

Let's get this straight. zipplewrath Mar 2012 #46

How about ProSense Mar 2012 #47

No, you zipplewrath Mar 2012 #49

Here ProSense Mar 2012 #50

Nuttin' huh? zipplewrath Mar 2012 #95

This message was self-deleted by its author zipplewrath Mar 2012 #51

It differs from true universal health care in TWO important ways: Lydia Leftcoast Mar 2012 #53

Krugman: ProSense Mar 2012 #61

But in our screwed up system, an older person like myself Lydia Leftcoast Mar 2012 #89

Uhm... kenfrequed Mar 2012 #113

Somehow I doubt that fans of Krugman's critique of Obama mzmolly Mar 2012 #87

Doesn't matter what % wants this. SammyWinstonJack Mar 2012 #5

cough *this law expanded medicaid eligibility* cough phleshdef Mar 2012 #6

Wonderful. Too bad Medicaid bux are being slashed right and left at state and federal levels n/t eridani Mar 2012 #92

Medicare for All is the only thing hifiguy Mar 2012 #9

What about my weird dream? mazzarro Mar 2012 #11

nice dream, pessimistic about it happening in real life northoftheborder Mar 2012 #14

Because it controls the costs they can charge /nt still_one Mar 2012 #19

Uh, we already had control of the house and senate and they decided that ACA was the way to go. progressoid Mar 2012 #29

Gonna keep repeating it: SINGLE. PAYER. RIGHT. EFFIN'. NOW. kestrel91316 Mar 2012 #12

Candidate for this year's "You Call This NEWS?" Award rocktivity Mar 2012 #16

and how would he do that? If the HCR is ruled unconstitutional, Obama loses the election /nt still_one Mar 2012 #18

And why would it cost him the election? rocktivity Mar 2012 #24

Because that is what he hung his first two years on, and if it was ruled unconstitutional, the still_one Mar 2012 #63

That might be the case, but I think the effect would be the opposite rocktivity Mar 2012 #125

Here is the reality, single payer would NOT have passed in 2008. The blue dogs and repugs would still_one Mar 2012 #17

Health Insurance Reform zipplewrath Mar 2012 #36

I agree mostly, however, by virtue of covering 40 million uninsured, it should save emergency room still_one Mar 2012 #62

We'll see zipplewrath Mar 2012 #75

It most assuredly did NOT federalize regulation, which is specifically left to the states n/t eridani Mar 2012 #93

It didn't? zipplewrath Mar 2012 #94

That is all irrelevant if actual enforcement is left to the states eridani Mar 2012 #123

Obama said it was Insurance Finance Reform. Autumn Apr 2012 #143

Great, realistic post. bluestate10 Mar 2012 #84

Then our "democracy" is a farce. It's as simple as that. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #109

I'm extra glad the Dems compromised away the best solution, that 2/3 of the public supported phantom power Mar 2012 #20

^^^^^^ Yes, the Dems had control and they silenced discussion of a universal, not for profit system slipslidingaway Mar 2012 #90

I'd start by blaming Lieberman. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #96

Start by calling him zipplewrath Mar 2012 #98

What leverage did they have .... your "call him" is nonsense. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #117

Kinda depends upon what HE says zipplewrath Mar 2012 #119

Weak strawman ... JoePhilly Mar 2012 #122

And you know this??? zipplewrath Mar 2012 #124

Funny how Kucinich got the 'come to Jesus' plane ride and not Lieberman..... Edweird Apr 2012 #144

It was ALL Joe Lieberman's fault!!!! bvar22 Mar 2012 #107

Sorry, I'm calling Bullshit MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #115

So you can't actually answer the question ... got it. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #118

For one thing, the White House could have used THIS: bvar22 Mar 2012 #131

Dems set the agenda for the HC reform discussions long before the vote took place ... slipslidingaway Mar 2012 #129

The GOP really had the upper hand, as they control the Blue Dogs in the Dem Party. NorthCarolina Mar 2012 #97

Blue Dogs leveraged the GOP zipplewrath Mar 2012 #99

Check out ProSense Mar 2012 #22

Gee...what a surprise. Safetykitten Mar 2012 #31

71% wanted the public option before the gop pissed all over it. nt wiggs Mar 2012 #32

thanks to town cryers like you Whisp Mar 2012 #39

When did I suggest that? MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #42

when? Whisp Mar 2012 #45

In other words... MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #73

Oh, Manny...there you go again. Zorra Mar 2012 #41

They want it until the Conservative media tells them they don't maximusveritas Mar 2012 #48

Medicare for All lovuian Mar 2012 #52

Reveals the disingenuous way that "disapproval" gets reported SoCalDem Mar 2012 #54

duh a2liberal Mar 2012 #57

Actually it's HeritageNewtRomneyObamaCare if one were to do it chronologically from Dragonfli Mar 2012 #60

Gotta give Bob Dole his due as well. Before or after Gingrich will do. TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #67

You're Right!!! I can't believe I went and denied him credit due, thanks for reminding me Dragonfli Mar 2012 #69

IIRC MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #76

Can't blame them for taking a bow, they spent over 20 years buying this law. /nt Dragonfli Mar 2012 #78

Not at allincredible. maddiemom Mar 2012 #65

Why is that "incredible"?? DCBob Mar 2012 #66

Not just Rethugs JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2012 #100

Medicare for all. WHEN CRABS ROAR Mar 2012 #68

That will be the first piece of legislation usrname Mar 2012 #70

That's been true since the 1st!!!! AlbertCat Mar 2012 #72

It always had been but any voice trying to get the attention of Congress, when Cleita Mar 2012 #74

Understand, if you can get off a high horse. bluestate10 Mar 2012 #77

Then why go way back over 20 years to a Heritage Foundation law that makes it even worse? Dragonfli Mar 2012 #79

Just curious: ever heard of Medicare? MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #80

You mean like Medicare? Doctor_J Mar 2012 #121

If our taxes can pay for illegal invasions, why can they not be used for Universal HC? WinkyDink Mar 2012 #82

Because UHC would reduce incomes for MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #83

When you mention figures, there is little support Yo_Mama Mar 2012 #85

Do you really want to know what they think? bvar22 Mar 2012 #127

That can't work Yo_Mama Mar 2012 #130

Thanks Manny. I can't resist this quote chill_wind Mar 2012 #86

Great quote, thanks! MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #88

�Don�t repeal health law..." ProSense Mar 2012 #101

Single Payer health care rocks! Quantess Mar 2012 #102

Keeping us sick and dependent on our overlords is the plan of the 1% libtodeath Mar 2012 #103

What is the yearly cost to Americans.... bvar22 Mar 2012 #108

I've always been clear - I want for-profit insurance companies OUT OF THE LOOP. saras Mar 2012 #112

Funny how that fact gets so little media attention! polichick Mar 2012 #114

Why is that incredible? LWolf Mar 2012 #120

Well, gee. woo me with science Mar 2012 #126

Something must be wrong with the polling treestar Apr 2012 #134

it's not popular with "the right people" unfortunately. librechik Apr 2012 #138

People like Obamacare at first, until it was attacked Freddie Stubbs Apr 2012 #139