Home | About | Donate

Liberals Strike Back... Against Single Payer


Absolutely, Emphyrio!

The Duopoly Dem Party, where “Progressive Ideas Go To Die”.


Yes, fern, Holistic Wellness (preventive Health Care) is ignored whenever possible, as is Dental, which is always Strangely, and Unscientifically, Detached from mix.



And the worst of the bunch is MSNBC, because like the most efficient Trolls, they are just an arm of the DNC (or worse) masquerading as Progressive.


Compromise between bad policy and really bad policy does not make good policy.
I believe there are better ways to move forward.


Medicare for all is an already functioning system in place and ready to go.

Medicare for all can be improved after a very simple law is written that says every person is covered by medicare the instant they are born.

Medicare for all is a money maker for the country. It will be an even more profitable money maker when expanded to dental, vision, and long term care.

Healthy and confident people create a strong successful country. It’s as simple as saying medicare for all.


The law would still need a funding mechanism. The current funding for Medicare is based on a tax that provides only for those 65 and up.


What you are talking about is the transition. That is one of the toughest parts of going to a single payer style system in our country. Conyers leaves nonprofit HMOs like Kaiser (some are nonprofit in name only) in place and gives preferance to former for-profit employees in hiring and benefits as a way to deal with it. Otherwise, the massive disruption a transition would create would kill the program up front. That’s why countries like South Korea adapted over a 15 year period while countries like Australia (which adopted a program, rolled it back after problems, then adopted a bit different one) still permit private insurance.


The opponents of a national medical system are no Liberals!
Liberals have campaigned for this since the 1930s if not before.

The people you are talking about must be center-right Democrats.
Please don’t confuse Americans by calling those politicians “Liberals”.


I think we need more information on the National bill HR 676 I think it is a partially a bail out bill and it might get more support than you think. We don’t go from trying to end the ACA to here is everything you want without having to give up something in return. A universal plan is not much good if you take away any right to enforce it.


Yes indeed. They are using the existing structure but I am concerned about the way the transition is outlined. Mostly the lack of information but it creates global budgets that essentially can be used to cap spending (which is what the republicans have wanted all along) It is a cost reduction model and not just by lowering the cost of pharmaceuticals and reducing administrative costs. Yes again, there would still be private insurance and services but they cannot duplicate services or compete with medicare. Non-profits could be manipulated if they are not regulated, that is how we ended up with things like Tenet Healthcare. Which is horrible and probably responsible for some levels of substandard care. A thirty page bill is not a plus in my opinion.


`Medicare 4 all examines that as a coordination with other countries with Universal Health Care but it isn’t specific. It mainly is focused on eligibility for people residing in the U.S. It doesn’t want to attract medical tourism.


I hope that anyone who opposes healthcare for all Americans is secure that he/she won’t lose his/her healthcare. And I hope his/her elders and children are secure in theirs. Are you sure?


We need to continue to work towards improvement. Single payer/Medicare for All is ideal, but is it possible? At any rate, we must not give up on incremental improvements. Some other nations do reasonably well with a hybrid public/private system such as Netherlands and Switzerland.


One question that I never see asked whenever the topic of health comes up is, “What exactly is a healthy person?”

Another might follow even before the first one is given an answer, and that is “What would a healthy society be like?”

To the second question it is easier as long as the answer is phrased in the negative. Example: “A healthy society would not just insure that their own citizens were guaranteed healthcare, but would also be free of aiding and/or abetting repressive nations/governments, nor would it attack/murder/torture innocents in any foreign lands.”

To suggest otherwise is the problem with “exceptionalism”, whether we’re talking about our country or any others.

Is a truly mentally healthy individual able to compartmentalize his own support for candidates/policies that kill innocent people abroad in military actions, yet simultaneously advocate for a better “medical system” on the domestic level?(Whether it is an argument for a “free market” or a “socialized system” etc. etc. is irrelevant at this level of questioning.)

And most important, how can anyone really know the full answer to any problem if they are not one with the universe, and thus know intimately everything? All answers that come will always – logically speaking – thus be partial answers, no?


Yes. There are existing cashflows that will convert to medicare cash flow. Existing Medicare administrative functioning is on contract at 3%, That number applied to more people will be larger. Even so, the cost will be considerably less than is delivered by corporate capitalism in the United States. The US is in last place for by far more money. Medicare for all is a money maker for the US.


Medicare is already paid for by a payroll tax - and has been since its inception, there are other mechanisms for funding in the bill as well - a payroll tax is a fixed,% tax and being based on income, will mean folks who don’t make as much won’t pay as much … It doesn’t “fix” out of pocket costs just for current enrollees, but for everyone else as well …

“Keep benefits in check” - the private insurance industry is doing a pretty good job of that already - that’s the problem, that’s why we need this bill …


No actually it currently provides for other folks, folks on dialysis and the like - a payroll tax adjustment is only one of the proposed funding mechanisms which can be used in concert …


“Groups excluded in participation”? from participation in what? in being paid by the program? like for-profit insurance companies? We have been over this before - to avoid a Const. “takings” challenge and to not dump the plain ole’ folks who work there out in the street …


Groups, there are more than just insurance companies, for instance for profit medical service providers with investors that would have to convert to non-profit, and others. I don’t mean to sound heartless but these are the same people we pay twice what any other country pays and for less. Still, I’m not saying they shouldn’t be compensated and they are eligible for the same services provided to other workers in other fields. Retraining as well. It really is a negotiation and I think the proposal is generous. It is hard to reward that type of behavior but I wouldn’t vote against it based on this regulation. I know we have been over the reason for the provision that doesn’t mean we have to agree.

Edited: All types of insurance companies are jumping ship I doubt their workers are getting a bonus.


About fifteen years ago the Institute of Medicine, the medical branch of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the health care system in the United States is not sustainable in the 21st Century. The only sustainable system is a national improved Medicare for all program. However, we will not have it nationally until we have it in a state or two. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said in the 1930s, “The states are the laboratories of democracy.” Several states are working toward that goal-- California, New York, Colorado, Nebraska, and Ohio (SPANOhio.org); perhaps some others. Sooner or later, the richest country will join the remainder of the industrial world that now provide health care for all of their citizens.