Democrats want universal health care

[Whereisup]

Democrats have always wanted universal health care, not something like Obama care. The two most common systems Democrats have wanted have been a single payer system like Canada's, or a simple expansion of Social Security to include everyone.

Obamacare was forced onto Democrats by the Republicans, who wouldn't vote for any universal health care bill. So of course, President Obama and the other Democrats don't like Obamacare, but are only living with it temporarily.

The thinking of the Democrats has been that they could pass the compromise with the Republicans, and then in one to several steps over the next few years, could reform Obamacare into universal health care.

Thus, the people complaining about Obamacatre are doing a good thing because Democrats can point to the complaints as evidence that Obamacare should be reformed.

Jim

 

[emilynghiem]

Democrats have always wanted universal health care, not something like Obama care. The two most common systems Democrats have wanted have been a single payer system like Canada's, or a simple expansion of Social Security to include everyone.

Obamacare was forced onto Democrats by the Republicans, who wouldn't vote for any universal health care bill. So of course, President Obama and the other Democrats don't like Obamacare, but are only living with it temporarily.

The thinking of the Democrats has been that they could pass the compromise with the Republicans, and then in one to several steps over the next few years, could reform Obamacare into universal health care.

Thus, the people complaining about Obamacatre are doing a good thing because Democrats can point to the complaints as evidence that Obamacare should be reformed.

Jim

If so, the Democrat leadership who passed the transition bill with its flaws should be held responsible for (a) all legal costs involved (b) all costs of paying for it and enforcing it in its flawed state that does not represent the opposing members of the American population and taxpayers (who are supposed to have equal Constitutional rights of inclusion and representation instead of discrimination by beliefs or party) (c) all costs of reforming and correcting it, including complications that caused other problems.

If you are going to pass an unconstitutional bill, the parties responsible for that should have to pay for the costs and implications for the compromise.

Otherwise, all conflicts should have been resolved IN ADVANCE BEFORE passing the bill so that it did carry the authority and consent of the taxpaying public as protected by law.

If you want to blame the deadlocks on members/leaders of BOTH parties, then we might enforce standards that anyone who wants to work as a govt official should either show ability to resolve conflicts INCLUSIVELY of all sides/views or be able to delegate mediation to parties who can facilitate a consensus that inclusively reflects all constituents WITHOUT discrimination or exclusion based on religious or political beliefs. If people cannot distinguish their own biases but continue imposing them on public policy, they should not serve in public office out of respect for Constitutional duty to equality and Code of Ethics.

 

[Whereisup]

Democrats have always wanted universal health care, not something like Obama care. The two most common systems Democrats have wanted have been a single payer system like Canada's, or a simple expansion of Social Security to include everyone.
Jim

If so, the Democrat leadership who passed the transition bill with its flaws should be held responsible for (a) all legal costs involved (b) all costs of paying for it and enforcing it in its flawed state that does not represent the opposing members of the American population and taxpayers (who are supposed to have equal Constitutional rights of inclusion and representation instead of discrimination by beliefs or party) (c) all costs of reforming and correcting it, including complications that caused other problems.

If you are going to pass an unconstitutional bill, the parties responsible for that should have to pay for the costs and implications for the compromise.

Otherwise, all conflicts should have been resolved IN ADVANCE BEFORE passing the bill so that it did carry the authority and consent of the taxpaying public as protected by law.

If you want to blame the deadlocks on members/leaders of BOTH parties, then we might enforce standards that anyone who wants to work as a govt official should either show ability to resolve conflicts INCLUSIVELY of all sides/views or be able to delegate mediation to parties who can facilitate a consensus that inclusively reflects all constituents WITHOUT discrimination or exclusion based on religious or political beliefs. If people cannot distinguish their own biases but continue imposing them on public policy, they should not serve in public office out of respect for Constitutional duty to equality and Code of Ethics.

Some good points. It might help if there were a requirement that every conversation any member of Congress has be recorded and made available to the public.

You already know about the deadlock, in which Republicans refuse to pass a bill unless the Democrats change it into something the Republicans like. Whether or not that is appropriate depends on what kind of government the citizens want.

Looking at the back room activity, however, the health insurance companies and other health care businesses mainly wrote the Obamacare bill to suit themselves, and I am 99% sure that that isn't what the voters wanted to happen.

I have an example of what goes on.

I was on the AARP message board when the drug benefit bill for seniors was first passed. The head of AARP was also on the message board and told us about what happened when she and other top AARP officers went to Congress to try to make sure Congress passed a good bill.

She said it was a horrible nightmare. The lobbyists for the health care businesses walked all over them, and decided what Congress would pass.

The bill in the end not only didn't help seniors all that much, but it also increased the profits of the drug companies by very large amounts.

So there was nothing she and the other AARP officers could do. The corporate lobbyists made it into a bad bill for American citizens, and a good bill for themselves.

Corporations for the most part write the bills that Congress passes.

Jim

 

[rightwinger]

It is the only choice that makes any sense

 

[alisha7525]

Democrats are ruling the roost in the present market and are quite accessible in modern day outing we are not responsible for the health care insurance that are being provided in the modern market and it takes care of the master tags in the following 7 contents which are needed

1) Task

2) Pay

3) Trial

4) Health Cards

5) Unmask

6) Tarrot

7) Fural

 

[Politico]

Nothing surprising here.

 

[DGS49]

"Universal Health Care" in concept is not a bad thing. There are some countries (e.g., Germany) that do a super-fine job with it.

Unfortunately, the only way to implement UHC successfully is to start with a MINIMAL healthcare infrastructure, and make a firm, national commitment to it, as was done in Canada.

One might also point out that UHC would be blatantly unconstitutional in the U.S. - so unconstitutional, in fact, that even Mr. Chief Justice Roberts would have to see it.

UHC is not achievable in the U.S., because there is a giant healthcare infrastructure that has come into existence and learned to be profitable (even if "non-profit") under the current regime. UHC would OBSOLETE the ENTIRE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY! Period. No exceptions. It would, of necessity, have to change our whole system of educating doctors, which would HAVE TO be undertaken by the Government. Hospitals, clinics, labs, physical therapy outfits, would all have to be turned over to Government.

Doctors, nurses, medical technicians, etc., would all be GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, with all that that implies.

Trying to superimpose a UHC mandate on our current health care infrastructure would preserve EVERYTHING that is wrong with the current system - the system that generates $50 thousand in invoices for a fucking appendectomy - and graft on top of it all of the inefficiency and waste that is endemic in every existing large government program.

What we are seeing now in the fiasco of ObamaCare implementation is only a hint of what we would have if we tried to implement UHC - WITHOUT eliminating the insurance companies, and not harming doctors, hospitals, labs, clinics, old farts homes, and so on.

It could easily reach 40% of our GDP within a few years.

If we had an EMPEROR with total legislative and executive authority, and a lifetime appointment, it MIGHT be possible. With our current Federal Government, it would be our worst nightmare.

 

[asterism]

Democrats have always wanted universal health care, not something like Obama care. The two most common systems Democrats have wanted have been a single payer system like Canada's, or a simple expansion of Social Security to include everyone.

Obamacare was forced onto Democrats by the Republicans, who wouldn't vote for any universal health care bill. So of course, President Obama and the other Democrats don't like Obamacare, but are only living with it temporarily.

The thinking of the Democrats has been that they could pass the compromise with the Republicans, and then in one to several steps over the next few years, could reform Obamacare into universal health care.

Thus, the people complaining about Obamacatre are doing a good thing because Democrats can point to the complaints as evidence that Obamacare should be reformed.

Jim

Except there were no Republican votes for the PPACA.

No, this is not a Republican compromise. This is the law the Democrats wrote and voted for.

 

[rdean]

Democrats want universal health care

Of course. It actually costs less than "let him die".

 

[AquaAthena]

Democrats have always wanted universal health care, not something like Obama care. The two most common systems Democrats have wanted have been a single payer system like Canada's, or a simple expansion of Social Security to include everyone.

Obamacare was forced onto Democrats by the Republicans, who wouldn't vote for any universal health care bill. So of course, President Obama and the other Democrats don't like Obamacare, but are only living with it temporarily.

The thinking of the Democrats has been that they could pass the compromise with the Republicans, and then in one to several steps over the next few years, could reform Obamacare into universal health care.

Thus, the people complaining about Obamacatre are doing a good thing because Democrats can point to the complaints as evidence that Obamacare should be reformed.

Jim

Except there were no Republican votes for the PPACA.

No, this is not a Republican compromise. This is the law the Democrats wrote and voted for.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid wanted universal health care for all, for only one reason: VOTES. None of them care about the 85% of others the ACA is hurting....none of them. They have the their own wealth plus their Cadillac plans and couldn't care less about those whose lives have been destroyed because they loved their affordable healthcare plans and couldn't keep them. PERIOD!

 

[Whereisup]

"Universal Health Care" in concept is not a bad thing. There are some countries (e.g., Germany) that do a super-fine job with it.

Unfortunately, the only way to implement UHC successfully is to start with a MINIMAL healthcare infrastructure, and make a firm, national commitment to it, as was done in Canada.

One might also point out that UHC would be blatantly unconstitutional in the U.S. - so unconstitutional, in fact, that even Mr. Chief Justice Roberts would have to see it.

UHC is not achievable in the U.S., because there is a giant healthcare infrastructure that has come into existence and learned to be profitable (even if "non-profit") under the current regime. UHC would OBSOLETE the ENTIRE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY! Period. No exceptions. It would, of necessity, have to change our whole system of educating doctors, which would HAVE TO be undertaken by the Government. Hospitals, clinics, labs, physical therapy outfits, would all have to be turned over to Government.

Doctors, nurses, medical technicians, etc., would all be GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, with all that that implies.

Trying to superimpose a UHC mandate on our current health care infrastructure would preserve EVERYTHING that is wrong with the current system - the system that generates $50 thousand in invoices for a fucking appendectomy - and graft on top of it all of the inefficiency and waste that is endemic in every existing large government program.

What we are seeing now in the fiasco of ObamaCare implementation is only a hint of what we would have if we tried to implement UHC - WITHOUT eliminating the insurance companies, and not harming doctors, hospitals, labs, clinics, old farts homes, and so on.

It could easily reach 40% of our GDP within a few years.

If we had an EMPEROR with total legislative and executive authority, and a lifetime appointment, it MIGHT be possible. With our current Federal Government, it would be our worst nightmare.

Every developed nation except the United States has universal health care. They do vary from one another, so there are various ways one can be set up. It would not be disruptive if the United States simply made everyone at any age eligible for Medicare. That would also make it easy to keep costs down.

Also, on another point you raised, Medicare is already constitutional, so no problem.

Most of the above mentioned universal health care nations spend less than 10% of GDP on their systems, as compared with out 17% and rising. A couple of them spend between 10% and 11%. The reason America spends so much, while not covering everyone, is that we allow doctors, hospitals, etc to just charge what they want.

Another important point is that the developed nations with universal health care are better than the United States on a number of measures. You can find that information on the United Nations website.

Included is the fact that people live longer, on average, in the universal health care developed nations. That is not the case with poor nations, of course, but the United States is not a poor nation.

So compared with the universal health care systems of the other developed nations, the American private business health care system:

1. Costs much more as a percentage of GDP than developed universal health care nations, usually in the area of twice as much and rising.

2. Provides worse medical care than the developed universal health care nations.

3. Doesn't cover everyone as the developed universal health care nations.

We Americans are chumps to continue a health care system that doesn't cover everyone, that costs much more, and that provides worse medical care.

Now it is true that the health care business lobbyists make it difficult to pass universal health care. However, if there were large demonstrations and 60 percent or so of voters in polls said they want universal health care, Congress would pass it.

Consider that difficult legislation has been passed in other times in American history. For example, women got the right to vote through, even though that had to be passed by all-male legislatures. If that amazing thing could happen, then certainly the voters could get universal health care through if they worked together.

Jim

 

[Whereisup]

Democrats have always wanted universal health care, not something like Obama care. The two most common systems Democrats have wanted have been a single payer system like Canada's, or a simple expansion of Social Security to include everyone.

Obamacare was forced onto Democrats by the Republicans, who wouldn't vote for any universal health care bill. So of course, President Obama and the other Democrats don't like Obamacare, but are only living with it temporarily.

The thinking of the Democrats has been that they could pass the compromise with the Republicans, and then in one to several steps over the next few years, could reform Obamacare into universal health care.

Thus, the people complaining about Obamacatre are doing a good thing because Democrats can point to the complaints as evidence that Obamacare should be reformed.

Jim

Except there were no Republican votes for the PPACA.

No, this is not a Republican compromise. This is the law the Democrats wrote and voted for.

You have forgotten the news reports for the last twenty years. There was much negotiation between Republicans and Democrats. Some Republican votes were needed to pass Obamacare, with the other Republicans being able to say to their voters that they voted against it. So the Republicans refused to give the Democrats those few needed votes unless they changed the law into something the Republicans wanted.

Actually, the bill is what the health care businesses wanted, because the Republicans forced it into something that would make more money for the health care businesses. In general, most of the Republicans of the Democrats are controlled by the corporations. If the voters strongly want something and say it firmly, Congress will vote for what the voters want. But if the voters aren't pushing, Congress will vote for what the corporations want.

To know what is going on, one must remember what has happened in the past few decades. One must ALMOST memorize the news reports. In addition, it is what actually happens that one must almost memorize. It doesn't help to almost memorize the spin, because, being spin, it is always inaccurate. Also, any analysis in the media is suspect.

Jim

 

[Whereisup]

Democrats have always wanted universal health care, not something like Obama care. The two most common systems Democrats have wanted have been a single payer system like Canada's, or a simple expansion of Social Security to include everyone.

Obamacare was forced onto Democrats by the Republicans, who wouldn't vote for any universal health care bill. So of course, President Obama and the other Democrats don't like Obamacare, but are only living with it temporarily.

The thinking of the Democrats has been that they could pass the compromise with the Republicans, and then in one to several steps over the next few years, could reform Obamacare into universal health care.

Thus, the people complaining about Obamacatre are doing a good thing because Democrats can point to the complaints as evidence that Obamacare should be reformed.

Jim

Except there were no Republican votes for the PPACA.

No, this is not a Republican compromise. This is the law the Democrats wrote and voted for.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid wanted universal health care for all, for only one reason: VOTES. None of them care about the 85% of others the ACA is hurting....none of them. They have the their own wealth plus their Cadillac plans and couldn't care less about those whose lives have been destroyed because they loved their affordable healthcare plans and couldn't keep them. PERIOD!

I have no way of knowing how sincere a politician is, so you might be right or you might be wrong. You are right to be suspicious though.

Democrats are supposed to work for the benefit of everyone and for reform if people are getting hurt. Sincere people are attracted to the Democratic party for that reason, but I don't know how many sincere people there are in Congress.

People who are not sincere but want to be Democrats must of course pretend that they want to work for the benefit of everyone, and so forth.

Conservatives are supposed to want everything to stay the same. That does not mean passing legislation that helps corporations damage the welfare of the citizens in order to make more money. Again, I don't know how many Republicans in Congress are sincere.

I communicated once with a Dutch reporter on a message board. She said that this American problem doesn't happen in the Netherlands. She said that the Netherlands is so small that a large percentage of people know their political candidates personally, so the Dutch know who is sincere and who isn't.

Sadly, we can't be like the Dutch because our electoral districts are so much larger than districts in the Netherlands.

Jim

 

[Joe Steel]

... Thus, the people complaining about Obamacatre are doing a good thing because Democrats can point to the complaints as evidence that Obamacare should be reformed.

Obamacare relies on for profit health insurance companies to provide near universal care. That's foolish. Capitalists can't be trusted to put aside their greed in favor of the public. Instead, we should rely on government programs such as single-payer or expanded Medicare.

 

[oreo]

Democrats have always wanted universal health care, not something like Obama care. The two most common systems Democrats have wanted have been a single payer system like Canada's, or a simple expansion of Social Security to include everyone.

Obamacare was forced onto Democrats by the Republicans, who wouldn't vote for any universal health care bill. So of course, President Obama and the other Democrats don't like Obamacare, but are only living with it temporarily.

The thinking of the Democrats has been that they could pass the compromise with the Republicans, and then in one to several steps over the next few years, could reform Obamacare into universal health care.

Thus, the people complaining about Obamacatre are doing a good thing because Democrats can point to the complaints as evidence that Obamacare should be reformed.

Jim

Sure they do--to a Democrat there is nothing better than raising taxes--calling it for the good of Americans--and then chose to throw that money or billions of it to their pet projects--so they can get reelected--and spend as they want.

Just like Social Security and Medicare--it was supposed to be for the people--the people have paid into these programs along with their employers--for their old age and medical benefits--and it goes to everywhere else--wars--welfare--pet projects--and everything other than their old age and medical.

This is the DEMOCRAT way.

 

[asterism]

Democrats have always wanted universal health care, not something like Obama care. The two most common systems Democrats have wanted have been a single payer system like Canada's, or a simple expansion of Social Security to include everyone.

Obamacare was forced onto Democrats by the Republicans, who wouldn't vote for any universal health care bill. So of course, President Obama and the other Democrats don't like Obamacare, but are only living with it temporarily.

The thinking of the Democrats has been that they could pass the compromise with the Republicans, and then in one to several steps over the next few years, could reform Obamacare into universal health care.

Thus, the people complaining about Obamacatre are doing a good thing because Democrats can point to the complaints as evidence that Obamacare should be reformed.

Jim

Except there were no Republican votes for the PPACA.

No, this is not a Republican compromise. This is the law the Democrats wrote and voted for.

You have forgotten the news reports for the last twenty years. There was much negotiation between Republicans and Democrats. Some Republican votes were needed to pass Obamacare, with the other Republicans being able to say to their voters that they voted against it. So the Republicans refused to give the Democrats those few needed votes unless they changed the law into something the Republicans wanted.

Actually, the bill is what the health care businesses wanted, because the Republicans forced it into something that would make more money for the health care businesses. In general, most of the Republicans of the Democrats are controlled by the corporations. If the voters strongly want something and say it firmly, Congress will vote for what the voters want. But if the voters aren't pushing, Congress will vote for what the corporations want.

To know what is going on, one must remember what has happened in the past few decades. One must ALMOST memorize the news reports. In addition, it is what actually happens that one must almost memorize. It doesn't help to almost memorize the spin, because, being spin, it is always inaccurate. Also, any analysis in the media is suspect.

Jim

I've forgotten nothing.

Show us a single Republican vote in favor of the PPACA.

 

[Politico]

Every developed nation except the United States has universal health care. They do vary from one another, so there are various ways one can be set up. It would not be disruptive if the United States simply made everyone at any age eligible for Medicare. That would also make it easy to keep costs down.

Everyone who qualifies is already eligible for medicare. That's never been the problem. It's getting them to change the stall until the claimant dies policy.

 

[dblack]

People want to be taken care of. Shocker.

 

[Whereisup]

Except there were no Republican votes for the PPACA.

No, this is not a Republican compromise. This is the law the Democrats wrote and voted for.

You have forgotten the news reports for the last twenty years. There was much negotiation between Republicans and Democrats. Some Republican votes were needed to pass Obamacare, with the other Republicans being able to say to their voters that they voted against it. So the Republicans refused to give the Democrats those few needed votes unless they changed the law into something the Republicans wanted.

Actually, the bill is what the health care businesses wanted, because the Republicans forced it into something that would make more money for the health care businesses. In general, most of the Republicans of the Democrats are controlled by the corporations. If the voters strongly want something and say it firmly, Congress will vote for what the voters want. But if the voters aren't pushing, Congress will vote for what the corporations want.

To know what is going on, one must remember what has happened in the past few decades. One must ALMOST memorize the news reports. In addition, it is what actually happens that one must almost memorize. It doesn't help to almost memorize the spin, because, being spin, it is always inaccurate. Also, any analysis in the media is suspect.

Jim

I've forgotten nothing.

Show us a single Republican vote in favor of the PPACA.

The Republicans could have blocked the bill in the Senate, but they didn't.

Anyone who doesn't like history has the right not to know. But not knowing about history does cause people to make mistakes.

So the problem we have is that of keeping the people who don't want to know about history safe. How can we do that?

Jim

 

[asterism]

You have forgotten the news reports for the last twenty years. There was much negotiation between Republicans and Democrats. Some Republican votes were needed to pass Obamacare, with the other Republicans being able to say to their voters that they voted against it. So the Republicans refused to give the Democrats those few needed votes unless they changed the law into something the Republicans wanted.

Actually, the bill is what the health care businesses wanted, because the Republicans forced it into something that would make more money for the health care businesses. In general, most of the Republicans of the Democrats are controlled by the corporations. If the voters strongly want something and say it firmly, Congress will vote for what the voters want. But if the voters aren't pushing, Congress will vote for what the corporations want.

To know what is going on, one must remember what has happened in the past few decades. One must ALMOST memorize the news reports. In addition, it is what actually happens that one must almost memorize. It doesn't help to almost memorize the spin, because, being spin, it is always inaccurate. Also, any analysis in the media is suspect.

Jim

I've forgotten nothing.

Show us a single Republican vote in favor of the PPACA.

The Republicans could have blocked the bill in the Senate, but they didn't.

Anyone who doesn't like history has the right not to know. But not knowing about history does cause people to make mistakes.

So the problem we have is that of keeping the people who don't want to know about history safe. How can we do that?

Jim

Please show me how the bill could have been blocked by the Republicans in the Senate.

This ought to be good.