Who is willing to throw these people under the bus to get Single Payer?

[cuke]

Only one candidate is pushing for Single Payer and we all know he won't be elected. We also know the overwhelming majority of people who have insurance are satisfied with their coverage and do not want to be forced to get their coverage from the govt. This is what killed UHC in 1993; the lack of choice.

It will take longer to get SP passed, than the proposals that are on the table now. During that time millions will suffer and die needlessly. Estimates say that 18,000 people die every year because they have no health insurance

People with no insurance and diabetes?

People with painful diseases that can be relieved with medication they can't afford?

The people who have to turn their lives in order to care for their uninsured loved ones?

on edit: My OP isn't clear about an important point. I am not referring to people who support SP but are willing to compromise and accept a universal health care that is not SP. I am referring to the people who will accept nothing but a Single Payer, Universal Health Care plan, like Kucinich's

[Warpy]

1. The majority of people are satisfied because

they haven't gotten sick yet.

However, that majority is shrinking all the time as copays escalate and make even routine visits for checkups something that have to be considered against rising gas and food prices. People are getting killed by these plans, and they are starting to realize it.

Universal coverage means just that. The reason for profit health care has proven itself unsatisfactory is because it's throwing too many people under its bus in the name of profit.

For profit plans make money three ways: denying coverage, denying partial or even full payment for care it approves, and denying care completely in hope the patient dies quietly before they assume a "medical loss," their jargon for delivering actual health care.

Throwing anybody under the bus, even the socially unacceptable people like smokers and the overweight, is not going to be part of any compassionate plan. Isn't that what the push toward single payer is meant to be, compassionate?

[cuke]

6. Right now, this very second, the majority is very satisfied

They don't want to be forced to give up their insurance and take it from the govt. I can't wait until the majority approves. I need meds and I need to see a doctor YESTERDAY.

I was recently diagnosed with Grave's Disease. I have no idea how I'm going to pay for the bills I've incurred. There are tens of millions of people in my situation. We can't afford to wait

Why should we suffer needlessly just so that insurance companies don't profit? What's more important; helping the sick or eliminating profit from the medical system?

[redqueen]

11. Again, no one will force them to switch to Medicare.

Why do you persist with the strawman arguments?

[Skinner]

2. This is one of the stranger arguments I have read against single-payer healthcare.

If you are for single-payer health insurance, you are throwing "people with no insurance" and people "with medication they can't afford" and people with "uninsured loved ones" under the bus.

I guess it's opposite day here on DU.

[cuke]

7. No, it you're opposed to the plans the democrats are proposing

(excepting Kucinich, and he's not going to be president anytime soon) because they don't eliminate the profits of insurance companies (and there are many people like that on DU. I can supply links) then they are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Maybe I wasn't clear enough about distinguishing between "supporting SP" and "supporting SP to the exclusion of any other UHC plan"

I'll see if I can edit the OP

[immoderate]

51. Profit plans don't pay for pre-existing conditions.

That sounds like you. I'm unemployed right now. How do I get health care? Am I misunderstanding your question?

--IMM

[mmonk]

64. Yeah, kind what I was thinking.

Brain rattling in a way.

[redqueen]

3. Medicare for all doesn't restrict choice.

It also doesn't magically abolish the for-profit private insurance industry.

[cuke]

8. The majority doesnt support Medicare for all

The majority is happy with their insurance and dont want Medicare

[redqueen]

10. Those are the ones who are lucky enough to have it.

What about the rest? Are you for throwing them under the bus, then, so that the misguided and overly-comfy aren't disturbed from their slumber?

[cuke]

17. I'm for any Universal Health Care plan, single payer or not

You do not support UHC unless it is SP

[redqueen]

19. Right.

I don't support funneling MORE tax money to profit fatcats.

[cuke]

22. So you oppose UHC unless it's SP

18,000 people die every year because they have no insurance

[redqueen]

26. How do you expect them to come up with the money to buy it

under any of the current "leave no insurance exec behind" plans?

[cuke]

33. Under UHC, the govt pays

[redqueen]

35. The taxpayer pays... for some. Pays insurance execs.

To withhold needed care, in the stockholders' interests, as is their ultimate goal.

I'm shocked that anyone would be so gung-ho about our tax money going to healthcare profiteers.

[NMMNG]

52. Bingo

Some years ago our state's Medicaid program flipped over to HMOs. One of the HMOs is run by United Health Care. Their CEO made $2,146,923 in salary, $9,409,277 in "Option Awards" and $477,314 in other compensations last year. I wonder how many people went without health care and paid exorbitant premiums/co-pays so he could make all of that money.



On edit: Look at all of the obscene salaries and other perks these "health care" executives get for their efforts.

[Dr.Phool]

28. I know plenty of people that aren't happy with their insurance!

I'm one of them. I've gotten the run around from them for over 30 years, not paying for legitimate claims, and having to pay literally thousands of $$$ out of my own pocket, when they should have.

And Hillary has the worst plan of all the candidates. It's Mitt Romney redux.

[cuke]

34. So do I

but most do not want to be forced to "buy" insurance from the govt

And a denial of a claim has cost me about $100,000

[mainegreen]

4. "the overwhelming majority of people who have insurance are satisfied with their coverage"

Bullshit.

[redqueen]

5. Oh no, it's true! Polls done by insurers say so! (nt)

[blondeatlast]

15. Amen. I have what's considered a good plan, but my family still can take the

medical expense deduction.

I find that obscene, actually. I'd rather pay that amount in increased taxes and have my neighbor as well or better covered than my family is now.

[youthere]

47. ditto that bullshit.

[Benhurst]

9. BushAmerica: Root, hog, or die.

The World's Only Superpower. Yeah. Sure.

[magellan]

12. Technical 1.2, Artistic 8.5, Execution 4.5 - Total score: 14.2

Feh. The UK and Canada win again.

[blondeatlast]

13. Most voters aren't single issue absolutists by any means.

I've a grave need for insurance. I have good coverage and still a hefty part of my family's income goes to my health care.

Americans want their neighbors to have access to health care, period. The road to it may not be clear, but the destination is.

[cuke]

18. Many DUers are or at least, seem to be

Many DUers oppose Universal Health Care unless it's a Single Payer system. They care more about elininating the insurance companies profits, than insuring everyone

[redqueen]

20. Single payer would cover everyone who wants it.

:wtf:

[cuke]

23. UHC without SP also covers everyone who wants it

[redqueen]

25. For a price... and that money goes to executives. Pass. (nt)

[cuke]

36. The govt pays

the individual doesn't

[redqueen]

37. Um... most of us pay taxes. So yeah, the individual still pays.

:wtf:

[cuke]

39. Under Single Payer, you'll also have to pay taxes for this

One minute, you want to insure the poor, and the next minute, you don't want to pay taxes to provide UHC, which covers the poor

[redqueen]

41. Taxes to UHC cover the poor AND INSURANCE EXECS.

SP covers the poor and leaves those greedy fucks in the cold.

Clearer?

[Selatius]

61. You missed one point.

With countries that utilize single-payer to provide health care, the per capita expenditures in health care in that nation are lower than in countries that impose mandatory purchase of private insurance. Single-payer is cheaper in that it cuts out the for-profit middleman, the private insurance company.

[tkmorris]

48. And how many die in that scenario?

How many people die due to denial of care from insurance companies?

When it comes to UHC I will take all I can get with the ultimate goal being SP that covers everything imaginable. I don't see how you can have the discussion however with acknowledging that insurance companies are motivated by money alone, and for this reason they are actually a hindrance to health care, not a facilitator. As long as they are part of the equation the health care system is still badly broken.

[blondeatlast]

24. We're nitpicking the issue as an ideal, which is what a board. We are more realistic when it comes

to casting a ballot.

It's an incredibly important difference.

[cuke]

38. That "ideal" doesnt mean one must oppose compromises

that result in eliminating the 18,000 who die every year because they have no health insurance

[redqueen]

46. Usually compromises come AFTER you make some attempt to get

the best you can.

You don't START OUT from a position of compromise.

Well... unless...

[annabanana]

60. pfft. . You DO have CSpan on your line-up, right?. . . .

[redqueen]

69. Grrr!

You stop that! :P

Yeah, yeah... I know... but a gal can dream. :7

[harun]

14. People are not happy with their current coverage at all

It is too expensive, keeps getting more expensive, and the coverage keeps getting worse.

[cuke]

21. Nope, most insurance is provided and subsidized by their employers

Since they don't pay the entire premium out of their pocket, the high premiums don't bother them.

It's the coverage getting worse that bothers them. When employers go to renew their insurance plans every year, they end up having to take less coverage in order to keep the premiums down. Each year, people become less and less satisfied with their coverage as copayments and deductibles rise. Eventually, I believe most people will become dissatisfied, but until then, they will oppose a Single Payer system because they don't want to be forced to use the govt's plan

[harun]

53. They are not afraid of the government plan

because their's is better. They are afraid of all the myth's about single payer, like taxes will go way up, the system won't work, they will have to wait in long lines, etc.

I don't know anyone who thinks there current plan is that great. Unless you are having a surgery one can pay for their basic health care out of pocket for cheaper than they pay for their work plans.

[scorpiogirl]

55. It's mostly covered by their employer,

until they lose their job and then they have to fork over the entire premium to COBRA to keep their coverage from lapsing. SP would remedy that.

[annabanana]

65. The more people NEED their insurance, the more unhappy they are.

Because that's when the plans start to nickle & dime them to death. If they deny a treatment, or coverage for a medication, the onus is on the patient (sick though they may be) to fight (and fight timely) for that coverage.

Procedures are considered "experimental" even after medicare has been covering it for a few years... The medication is dropped from the formulary before the generic has been released because of some strong-arming by the pharmaceutical company...Your first "appeal" is lost, and by the time you realize they've lost it.. their window for appeal is past. (The cut off date mandated by a bought and paid for legislature I might add)

The only people really "satisfied" by their insurance are the people who barely need it.

[LWolf]

16. I am not willing to throw all those people under the bus

who get no health care under our current system.

I am not willing to leave a single person without affordable health care.

I believe that health care is a right, not a privilege, and I believe that anyone who needs care should get it. Now.

I don't believe that any health care system that does not guarantee full and equal health care for 100% of the population can be legitimately called "universal."

"Universal Health Insurance" is not the same thing as health care. Insurance does not equal care, as I have cause to know.

I don't NEED to compromise on single payer. It's already in Congress, as HR 676. It will continue to be in Congress every year until it finally passes.

No need to compromise when something better is already on the table.

[treestar]

27. Nothing would stop people from still having private insurance if

they could afford that in addition.

Anyone in the income bracket where they'd have to give up the private insurance, presumably due to higher taxes to pay for the government insurance would likely prefer the government, because the private is generally attached to a job, and you can always lose your job.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if we had a universal health care plan. Some people stay in jobs they hate just for the insurance. It would give a lot of people much more flexibility regarding things of that nature. You could work for smaller employers easier, because that they can't offer insurance wouldn't be a factor.

[blondeatlast]

30. Indeed on all points. UHC/SP would be a boon to small business

and lower the bottom line for big biz. Even some major corporate players are slowly starting to advocate this as a good thing.

[cuke]

40. HC without SP would be a boon to the uninsured

[redqueen]

42. ...

:rofl:


All right... I give up! :crazy:

[blondeatlast]

50. I'm with you. Little fish, big pond.

And if little fish is hell bent on taking the bait, I won't stop it... :rofl:

[DemBones DemBones]

29. Kucinich could be president if people weren't too chicken to support him.

Why people want another DLCer is beyond me. :shrug:

[redqueen]

44. Stockholm syndrome?

:shrug:

:P

[DemBones DemBones]

54. Damn, you may have solved the mystery!

I've always wondered why so many people are willing to "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" in January 2009.

Stockholm Syndrome would explain it.

[redqueen]

57. Heh... well I was joking...

but now that I think about it... :P

[DemBones DemBones]

67. Yes, when you think about it. . .

What other explanation is there? Pod people?

[Swamp Rat]

31. "we all know he won't be elected" - what do you mean "WE?"

Support Kucinich if you want single payer health insurance.

I haven't had health insurance for 7 years and need it very badly, so that is why I will support Kucinich.

The other candidates don't give a fuck about me.

[hiphopnation]

43. sir...come with me.

going to have to give you a citation for not supporting the candidates that the MSM has vetted and approved as safe for consumption for the general public.

please pipe down and give up hope for any candidate that is not pre-approved by those who know what's best for you.

:sarcasm:

[Swamp Rat]

45. OBEY

:D

[truedelphi]

32. I thought I understand your OP until I read the added last paragraph.

WHo goes under the bus??

I'm not clear on whether I should be throwing myself under the bus because if the other plan that is not SP but supposedly is close to it ends up being like COBRA I will have to choose between food and insurance or rent and insurance.

And just like COBRA I will not be able to stay in the program.

And maybe I will be penalized for my not staying in the program??

SO therefore I am not willing to have a compromise.

THE TRUTH IS THAT IF KUCINICH GOT FIFTY CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR HILLARY GETS FROM THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY, he might damn well get elected.

All this compromise stuff is just what the insurance-entrenched candidates want us to go for.

FOLLOW THE MONEY!

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

49. Throwing somebody under the bus

"It will take longer to get SP passed, than the proposals that are on the table now. During that time millions will suffer and die needlessly. Estimates say that 18,000 people die every year because they have no health insurance

People with no insurance and diabetes?

People with painful diseases that can be relieved with medication they can't afford?

The people who have to turn their lives in order to care for their uninsured loved ones?

Funny, that sounds a lot like what we have now.

The proposals on the table by many other candidates have a fundamental problem, they are giving too much leeway to the health care 'industry' to make the rules.

If you have a henhouse, its pretty wise not to let the fox be the guard dog.

[mmonk]

56. Enough with the stereotyping.

Want some stereotypes the other way?

[supernova]

58. Go right on ahead thinking that

if you want to keep the status quo. If you want to keep "insurance" that covers only the bare minimum and not what's really needed, go right ahead thinking what you do.

If you want to keep saying that we don't want coverage for diabetes, and other "painful diseases that can be releived with medication they can't afford," go right ahead.

If you want to keep being the one who has to "turn their lives in order to care for their uninsured loved ones," go right ahead.

You are too desperate, and my heart goes out to you for that. We can't compromise just to get every little crumb that is offered. We want what is just and compassionate. We want the care and with it the dignity that every human being has as a right.

[mmonk]

59. So how do we get the blame for the uninsured under

the insurance company model when we are the ones not supporting an insurance company model? Sounds like projection if you ask me. Why don't those that support insurance company models compromise in order to insure these people?



Elizabeth Kucinich on healthcare.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x68222

[supernova]

62. Because we just don't compromise enough!

Don't you get it?!? :sarcasm:

[mmonk]

63. Oh yeah, how silly of me.

Makes perfect sense.;-)

[BuelahWitch]

66. This is not 1993

And health insurance coverage has gone way downhill since the early Clinton administration.

[nashville_brook]

68. this deserves a DUzy.