Home | About | Donate

As Single-Payer Enters Debate, Doctors Hail It as Only 'Humane Cure for Our Health Care Ills'


As Single-Payer Enters Debate, Doctors Hail It as Only 'Humane Cure for Our Health Care Ills'

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

The idea of having a single-payer healthcare system has entered the presidential debates—and that's a very good thing, a doctors group says, as it is "only equitable, financially responsible and humane cure for our healthcare ills."


"And the week before the last debate, as Clinton also took aim at Sanders' healthcare proposal, The Intercept reported that the former secretary of state, "from 2013 to 2015, made $2,847,000 from 13 paid speeches to the [healthcare] industry." "

This vested interest is a vest as uniform, like the innumerable types of vests cladding innumerable types of interests for NOT innumerable reasons. Hillary Clinton has a wardrobe full of them, supplied by those who pay her handsomely to massage their ideologies for them in ways shaped by arduously constructed arguments, hiding of facts, excluding here, excluding there, attacking as if the lies are substantive and posturing as dog whistle blower that the ideology is more important than that which is extracted in order for it to even exist.

I am reminded that part of this ideology is the insidious claim that the problems created by the ideology, all the victims of the holes, voids, secrecy, extraction, are the responsibility of those victimized by it. This is constantly being bulldozed over virtually all aspects of life by, at best, forms of long term irresponsibly to constantly tighten the grip on acquired privilege; brute force in a velvet glove of PR in twisted dog whistle fashion that law applies to the victims but not the victimizers. This to me is utterly and completely fraudulent and profoundly destructive power that will only need to incessantly intensify and cannibalize in order to drag its death dealing model along.

Single payer - oops, might that mean no more room for all of the above...???


"... the former secretary of state, "from 2013 to 2015, made $2,847,000 from 13 paid speeches to the [healthcare] industry." "

Any human who can read and understand that sentence, should swiftly cast aside any notion of Clinton's integrity, along with any notion of ever voting for her.


This sounds very reasonable, in the best interests of the country. But I think people would soundly reject anything close to equal, comprehensive health care for all. Indeed, would it make sense to provide more than our current "patch 'em up and send 'em out" health care for our very poor, just to dump them back on the streets? Deprivation of adequate food and shelter takes an extraordinary toll on a person's health.


The ACA was the best that Obama could get through Congress. It has unquestionably enabled many to get real health care, saving lives and money. This matters. When people demand all or nothing, they usually end up with nothing. The ACA was a big step forward.


Single Payer will become to the Democratic Party what the Pro Life Movement is to the Republican Party: just another campaign money funnel to the DNC and their selected candidates and organizations. Who, in turn, will never support actually changing the policy. They'll sound sincere, though. Sort of like Ted Cruz does. Kabuki stuff and worse because they're abandoning and seriously abusing people, actually. This is just another reason, if you need one, to not support the Generic Democrats in the 2016 general election. No Justice, No Peace!


Single payer and Medicare are vastly different - single payer is the way to go - Medicare for all is only slightly better than the current (for profit) system.


"...neither Clinton's nor Sanders' [plan] has much of a chance of being successful unless there are significant changes in the makeup of the Congress that would put Democrats in charge of both chambers again."

The Democrats were in charge of both houses when Obama's ACA giveaway to the health insurance and big pharma was passed. The trouble is/was that all Democrats aren't the same. Some Dems, often called 'blue dogs' and others were just as adamant in opposition until their corporate benefactors were given a prime spot at the trough.

What Bernie would need, after beating Hillary and thumping Trump, is to have had enough progressives ride in on his coattails to override the blue dogs and other Hillary like Dems.


So, is there ANY reason to believe that the DNC "establishment" candidate, with a HALF $BILLION in Super-pac and maximized donations, cannot absolutely KNOW What Populist Legislation Can NOT be passed?"

"You don't need to listen to doctors or nurses! I am experienced and have been in the trenches. I know what is too "extreme" to support."


Unfortunately, the corporate system based on profits and price gouging is too powerful the USA. Most politicians and pundits serve that system, and the hope of the humane and responsible healthcare system that the doctors' and nurses' groups talk about remains too elusive in the USA.


Makes even more sense web walk from The Intercept though not done by Greenwald. Also an interesting explanation about Gov. Dean's support for both Hillary and the "industry" on the link.


I used to believe that, but it is not true, according to one of the co-authors of the ACA, Tom Harkin, in The Hill, 03Dec2014.

Harkin appeared on Randi Rhodes' show (I believe some time in 2010) and told her that the ACA would get passed, and that it would be used [as a stepping stone to single payer].

Years later, in 2014, he said that it was a mistake to not include single-payer in the original act. Obama could have twisted the arms of centrist democrats (aka, republicans), but he didn't, and the act became diluted and overly complicated.

Harkin said: There’s this old saying, ‘If you have the votes, vote. If you don’t, talk.’ We had the votes but we talked, he said.

Now, six to seven years later, we're told by another centrist democrat Clinton that it's too soon to revisit? She's a liar.

Clinton's millions from the healthcare insurance industry are more important than the health of her electorate. It's another indication that her supporters are either clueless or simply right-wingers.

We've waited long enough.


Many Murkins who are "happy with their healthcare" (to quote Obama's ACA promotion mantra) probably will "reject anything close to equal, comprehensive healthcare" if they actually are still "happy with their healthcare". Big "if".

Many of those who were "happy with their healthcare" have found that the ACA enabled insurers and employers to charge more for less. On January 1, 2018 the total value of all employer sponsored medical insurance will become taxable, resulting in a defacto pay cut for tens of millions of Murkins who rely on employer sponsored insurance. At that point support for single payer will increase exponentially.


The reason there is no public option in the ACA is that three Democrats (Nelson, D-NE; Lieberman, I-CT; and Landrieu, D-LA) announced that they would not vote for cloture if the bill contained a public option. Without a vote for cloture, bills are filibustered to death in the Senate, so Harry Reid had no option but to bring a bill to the floor without a public option.

With a public option, obtaining health insurance would be just like choosing where to send your kids to school. You can send them to public schools paid for by taxes or you could pay tuition and send them to private, not-for-profit schools or private, for-profit schools. Why do we have the choice when it comes to education, but not when it comes to health insurance?

Nelson was an insurance executive before going into politics and is now back with big insurance after he retired from politics. He sided with big insurance and against the people. There is nothing Obama could have done to convince Nelson to vote against big insurance. Private insurance companies are opposed to a public option because this is competition.

CT is home to a number of big insurance companies and that explains Lieberman. I don't know why Landrieu was opposed to a public option.

But you shouldn't be surprised by this. Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage) is just like the ACA and unlike Medicare Parts A and B. Medicare Parts A and B are public insurance (single-payer), but if you want prescription drug coverage when you sign up for Medicare, you have to buy it from a private insurance company.


The ACA did not enable insurance companies to jack up premiums and co-pays because private insurance companies operate in the free market. Management of insurance companies make free-market decisions concerning what they will cover and what it will cost. The ACA did force private insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions and to cover students on their parents' policies until the age of 26.

Since selfishness is a virtue under capitalism (Ayn Rand), insurance companies would only insure healthy people if they could get away with it.

When Obama said if you like your insurance, you can keep it, what he meant is that nothing in the ACA requires you to choose a particular insurance plan. He was naive in ignoring what big insurance does.

The beauty of public insurance (Medicare) is that the Part B premium can only increase if there is a COLA in the Social Security benefit and the amount of the increase must always be less than the amount of the COLA. Besides Medicare I have private supplemental insurance from Blue Cross. They jack my premium up every year because, they tell me, the older I become, the more expensive I am to insure. DUH! Your body wears out as you age and you need health care more often.


Medicare is single-payer because the government (Medicare) pays the bills.

I think you are confusing national health care (what Great Britain has) with public health insurance (what Medicare is and Canada has). In Great Britain the doctors work for the government and hospitals are owned by the government. You don't have health insurance; you simply go to the doctor just as children who go to public school in the US. If you are on Medicare or live in Canada, the doctors and hospitals are private. When they treat you, they bill Medicare (in the US) or Provincial Health Insurance (in Canada). So your public health insurance pays the bills.


Do not I correctly remember that somewhere in Clinton's first term he at some point held up a "single payer" health card as an objective. Then do I remember Hillary pushing for health care reform on that basis but it didn't work out.


As much as Donald Trump presidency would be a total disaster the only chance of getting a single-payer system is if he wins. Supposedly Trumps supports a single-payer system. Anybody who remembers the endless debate over the Affordable Care Act should should realize that any Democratic president pushing single-payer is doomed to endless arguments and no legislation. A Democratic president needs a different Congress to go for single-payer. The next time the Democrats control both the House and Senate someone could give it a try.


OK - so let's try a little bit of truth telling ..



A good reason not to support any Dems ...