Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Hillary supporters are calling single payer health insurance a "pie in the sky" fantasy [View all]Jarqui
(10,911 posts)65. Those electorates, certainly Canada, was howling "No way!! Commies!!!"
until their leaders walked through the merits, stuck to their guns and got it done
Here's Canada's Saskatchewan (almost Vermont) story
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/healthc.pdf
The CCF won the 1960 election, in spite of a well-funded campaign by doctors in opposition
to the health program. As the government proceeded to put its program into legislation through the
Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act (1961), the doctors continued their campaign against what
they termed "socialized medicine." Accusing the government of "communism" and "compulsory state
medicine," the doctors warned that the province was interfering with their right as professionals to
practice medicine and was attempting to make them "salaried government employees." They warned
that doctors would leave the province rather than work under such a system. Finally, in a last-ditch
effort to force the government to back down on its health care reform, the doctors went on strike on
July 1, 1961, the first day the new legislation came into effect.
The doctors' strike in Saskatchewan lasted 23 days and gained worldwide attention. While
the doctors agreed to maintain emergency services and the provincial hospitals remained open with
reduced staff, most private practitioners closed their offices. Ironically, the mortality rate in the
province declined during the strike, primarily because of the decline in surgery.
While much of the national and international media condemned the doctors action, the local
media supported the doctors and demanded that the government back down on its program. In spite
of the local media's support, as the strike wore on public opinion in Saskatchewan turned against the
doctors. As communities started to recruit doctors willing to work under the health plan from other
parts of Canada, the local doctors' resolve rapidly dwindled. The strike ended with the new health
program still intact. The provincial government negotiated a face-saving agreement with the doctors
which permitted them to opt entirely out of the plan and bill patients privately. With over 900 doctors
in the province at the time, none chose this option. The agreement also permitted doctors to maintain
their own medical insurance companies as clearinghouses for the Medical Care Commission, though
these were eventually eliminated by the doctors themselves as needless duplication.
In spite of the controversial start to the Saskatchewan program, it quickly proved to be a
success. Within a few years, the Saskatchewan model became the prototype for other provinces.
That's the kind of progression Bernie is talking about.
And look:
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f3f51624680366b198b6c5dea8687621?convert_to_webp=true
US spends four times as much on health care per capita as the Czech Republic and has a similar life expectancy - one of the worst of the developed nations. That shouldn't be a hard thing to sell: the US is getting ripped off badly and the real American victims of the policy can't complain very loudly because they're either too sick or dead.
Between 2001 and 2014, 3,063 Americans died in terrorist attacks in America.
In that same time, 631,700 Americans died because they didn't have healthcare. I'm not exaggerating. Think about that number for a moment. And then convince me why I should accept "pie in the sky" tax cuts that won't stop those deaths without healthcare. If Bernie's leader, at least we're past the point of having to argue with the President about it. This is a disgusting travesty. With Hillary, she'll have to ask Wall Street what they think about it because unlike Bernie, she lacks the fortitude to take a stand and really save some lives. Hillary's policy is to kick that can down the road with tax cuts - and continue to let folks die.
I don't think that's a pie in the sky argument if the Koch Brothers and Wall Street don't own your leaders like they seem to own Hillary and Congress. The costs and life expectancies and deaths without health care are facts - the simple truth. The rest of the "pie in the sky" crap is largely smoke to cover for the fat cats siphoning money from hard working Americans that cuts their loves short.
Enough.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
157 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Hillary supporters are calling single payer health insurance a "pie in the sky" fantasy [View all]
Cheese Sandwich
Nov 2015
OP
All hope is lost. Might as well give up and settle for a Republican president since HRC would be in
notadmblnd
Nov 2015
#129
Yeah, and by even the most generous estimates the next POTUS will have to contend with a
Warren DeMontague
Nov 2015
#124
We're gonna try to pass single-payer in Colorado next year regardless of who thinks it's viable now
Turn CO Blue
Nov 2015
#149
Gee, he was hoping Vermont would demonstrate the point--it didn't. It failed BIG time.
MADem
Nov 2015
#39
I keep seeing the same people re-cycle this article without connecting to its core concept...
MrMickeysMom
Nov 2015
#111
I remember during the whole HC bill debate that began from some on the 'left' right away.
sabrina 1
Nov 2015
#2
What bothers people....we have the rest of the civilized world as examples. We know how it works.
Enthusiast
Nov 2015
#87
Maybe what they're admitting is Hillary isn't a good enough leader to get it done ...
Jarqui
Nov 2015
#6
except that is not what he wrote - here's a cut and paste of the comment so you can review
azurnoir
Nov 2015
#51
no this is about about a rather weak sauce gott-cha type of thing at least IMO
azurnoir
Nov 2015
#57
Are you sure? Democrat is a noun and Democratic is an adjective right?
Cheese Sandwich
Nov 2015
#125
Always say Democratically controlled, Democratic candidate, etc. This is how it has been said
randys1
Nov 2015
#127
I was just explaining who started this, whether you are familiar with it or not
randys1
Nov 2015
#139
How can you predict "facts"? Not having Single Payer is literally letting some Americans
rhett o rick
Nov 2015
#25
Until a large chunk of America's congressional boundaries are redrawn, at the earliest.
Donald Ian Rankin
Nov 2015
#34
At the current rate the ACA will implode before that. My rates went up 33% this year. How
rhett o rick
Nov 2015
#64
So the US is incapable of doing something other countries have accomplished?
winter is coming
Nov 2015
#11
Two of the three Democratic candidates have issued health care plans w/o Single Payer
brooklynite
Nov 2015
#14
Which issue would you like not to be addressed while time is spent on Single-Payer?
brooklynite
Nov 2015
#17
NO, but the health insurance and hospital and RX lobbies are so rich and powerful
randys1
Nov 2015
#31
So you think there is NO influence by the BILLIONS in healthcare on a politician
randys1
Nov 2015
#38
My opinion is that a thoughful politician knows how much political capital was expended on ACA...
brooklynite
Nov 2015
#45
Well, once again, if the GOP gets to decide, you will have NO HC unless you have a job
randys1
Nov 2015
#53
So you support the use of RAT...got it...BTW, you need to know that I point this out no matter
randys1
Nov 2015
#59
The 8 hour work day and voting rights for women were once "Pie in the Sky".
Tierra_y_Libertad
Nov 2015
#23
I'd love to see it happen and it should happen, but I don't think it will happen any time soon.
Renew Deal
Nov 2015
#58
It really is a self-fullfilling prophecy isn't it? They claim it can never happen, so they dont try
n8dogg83
Nov 2015
#104
It is only a fantasy to those who support the corporate healthcare system we now have.
onecaliberal
Nov 2015
#70
So all of Western Europe has had pies in the sky for the past three to seven decades?
Betty Karlson
Nov 2015
#75
It really is good to know the truth now in case Hillary wins the nomination.
Enthusiast
Nov 2015
#101
Virtually every other developed nation has it. It's a proven, efficient, good way to deliver
JDPriestly
Nov 2015
#77
If other countries do it, and they like it (Germany has had single payer or national health
JDPriestly
Nov 2015
#89
The support of the people can even overcome the influence of gifts of money by the profiteers.
Enthusiast
Nov 2015
#108
That sounds like a Republican response, not a Democratic response.
Dont call me Shirley
Nov 2015
#90
DLC/Third Wayers said the same thing about gay marriage in 2007-2008, and earlier.
Zorra
Nov 2015
#103
I was just about to start a thread with the exact same title. Hillary want us to settle for less.
reformist2
Nov 2015
#134
I mean look, it's true we can't pass single payer right now, that's why we need to organize
Cheese Sandwich
Nov 2015
#144