In times of crisis the American People come together. World Wars. Economic crisis. 911. The assassinations of Presidents.
We're in a crisis now. The crisis of how millions will be able to pay for health care. Far too many of us don't consider this a crisis because we have health insurance. It's not our problem. Just tell the uninsured to find another job or get a second job. Take better care of themselves.
Well friends, it is our problem. For all the rugged and manly talk of individualism and liberty, we seem to forget that the name of our Nation is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Our mission is to live up to our name. We must unite. Every day the number of uninsured increases. Most Americans are good, hard working people. When forced, they will sacrifice. This means many of the unlucky get sick and don't go to the doctor because they are trying to save a few bucks. What may have been cured with a shot or a pill, turns into something far worse because it wasn't treated early. They finally go to the doctor. The bills are huge and your states public aid dept. pays them. Or bankruptcy is filed and the hospital is stuck.
We've all heard the speech from a coach about there being no "I' in team. If we're all willing to bust our asses to make our team better, why not our Country. Single payer health insurance makes our Nation stronger. It makes our business more competitive. It insures that our health care providers are paid.
Tomorrow morning the health insurance crisis will hit a few thousand more workers when they're told by their employers that they can no longer afford health insurance benefits. It's time we united and put a stop to this preventable tragedy that happens every day. We can do this through single payer health insurance.
18 comments:
You said it best when you said "change isn't easy." With big sweeping changes, it's easy forget that we are indeed the UNITED states. That's an idea I hope our politicans can reenforce.
I think an addendum to the single payer system you propose is the taxes collected goes through a private company, not through government. Such a difference could help the fiscally conservative and irrational right to feel more comforatble with the idea which would effectively run the same ways as the gov't in the original HR626 bill.
Actually Truth, the crisis of healthcare in this country is much, much bigger than just 47 million Americans without healthcare.
Right now healthcare is consuming a greater portion of our GNP and these costs are growing at a much higher rate than inflation.
Then healthcare costs are growing in multiples of the increases in workers wages and it is now the number one reason families are forced into bankrutpcy.
You cannot remain competitive economically nor can you grow your economy with this issue dragging down the rest of your economy.
It is just a matter of time before only the wealthiest will be able to afford healthcare and whatever quality of care we believe our healthcare system provides will be sacrificed due to the fact that more and more people cannot afford the luxury of healthcare.
I've changed my tune some since reading your site and listening to TAO,Left Coast Rebel and a few others on total government control TL. As TAO says, the scope of the health care system is gigantic. It will require the best and brightest to implement and make it work. So the best and brightest from the private sector will have to be involved. I like that the taxes collected would go through a private company TL. We see the government borrowing (stealing) from other funds like Social Security. This would hopefully keep that from happening. Plus it would make this more palatable to the right. We do need consensus.
My hope is that the bill being discussed in Congress dies so we can move on to single payer and making it work.
You are right. I don't consider it a crisis. Probably because it hasn't reached the point of crisis.
Now I will concede most of the factual points you make (becasue arguing facts is dum). And I am one of the people who would delay going to the doctor for something small, although not for cost alone. If it were a matter of cost, I'd find a way (as I too don't have any insurance (or a doctor, for that matter)).
And your list of things that single payer will do is from a list, not what experience in places where it has been implemented has shown. But nice try in attempting to equate moral responsibility with legal responsibility.
(and I promise to visit more often)
TL, and Truth......I would love for you to continue that train of thought and see where it goes....you've intrigued me!
I am actually not agreeing with Patrick on this one....I think it's going to snow! :-)
I see it as a crisis. When an average American cannot get insurance and either does not go to the doctor or bankrupts themselves to get treatment there is something seriously wrong. Companies are dropping their employees insurance coverage. This is only going to get worse.
This crisis is made worse by wingnuts telling people like you and Patrick that you are better off without health insurance than some "socialist government program" providing it.
I too believe it is going to get worse. Companies are getting rate increases, mine just did 40%, and passing THAT cost to their employees who can NOT afford it because they are NOT getting a raise in wages. What are they supposed to do, drop their coverage and take a chance they won't get a catastrophic illness? That's asking for Murphy to move into your spare bedroom, in my opinion. I think Truth is right, we need someone to oversee the plan, but not only government because they like to dip into funds i.e. Medicare, and private companies like their profits too much. Maybe government and private need to get together to make this work.
This crisis is made worse by wingnuts telling people like you and Patricket that you are better off without health insurance than some "socialist government program" providing it.
This is the crux of the problem. I can't tell you how many times conservatives say "well I don't have health insurance, and I'm doing just fine!" Yet, I have a completely unscientific hunch that 90% of those people will say something to the tune of "OMFG! My heart surgery costs $125,000!! I can't pay this... I'm going to go bankrupt... the government should do something about this!"
My problem with this debate, and maybe to a certain extent conservative ideology, is that the right tend to be very... reactionary. Instead of spending $2 on orange juice to prevent colds, they'd rather spend $25 on medicine after they catch the cold. Looking at the debate at the macro level, I really think it is an issue of spending money to prevent costlier procedures versus spending money (via private insurance) after you're already sick. The insurance company makes more money on the latter stance. Common sense vs. corporate America at its finest folks.
"That's the way we've always done it" has been an impediment to progress since humans developed speech.
We get used to new things very quickly though. Millions vowed to never have a cell phone. Microwave. Buy a Pepsi when the price went to 35 cents.
Look at the remote you got with your most recent TV. A few days later you could operate it with your eyes closed. So it will be when the Nation goes to a new way to pay for health care. Just getting the program started is 95% of the work.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were to quasi government entities that went bad...
When you propose the concept of centralized control without government involvement then you are talking about a quasi government entity DBA Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Pam is facing a 40% increase in premiums, my employees faced a 12% increase (and our claims were only at 54% of our premium dollars) and I checked with my doctor and he isn't being paid 12% more!
The Public Option is the only thing in the current healthcare debate that can shake up the insurance industry and it appears to be on the cutting bloc right now.
Its being attacked most ferverently by older people who most likely currently enjoy the public option known as Medicare.
I cannot help but shake my head and wonder about this country and its people when I realize that we have raided social security and pretty near bankrupted it and have now instituted the greatest deficits we have ever seen and what do we have to show for it?
Our schools only graduate 70% of their students, our healthcare is the costliess and least efficient in the world our standard of living and median household income has steadily been dropping for over 10 years, we are bogged down in two wars with no real achieveable goal in sight our financial system had to be bailed out of a disaster and now they are nickle and diming us to death with fees, and our car dealers have to depend of a cash for clunkers program from the government to keep their heads above water....
Jesus, is that what a superpower has been reduced to?
101: It's not about individual stories when I and others speak about not being saddled with that "socialist government program" (I'm going to have to use that phrase more). Because in any system, you can find people who have benefited from the government after being screwed by an insurance company. But that's the point:
When you have a private system with sane oversight by a government, then there's a place to fall back to when the private sector is exhausted. but when the people with the power hold the purse strings and an agenda, to whom do you appeal?
Until you can answer that, the majority will always oppose an increase in the size, scope, and powers of a government, because there is no appeal past the people with the guns.
Tao: You've just listed most of the government programs that convince me that the government doesn't need to get into another part of the economy to "compete." Because "competition" the government (not public) option exists only until the government decides that we don't need options in coverage and runs them out.
And the government does so well with monopolies (as President Obama did when he talked about the Post Office).
So to answer your final (and probably rhetorical) final question:
Jesus, is that what a superpower has been reduced to?
When we abandoned the principles of a limited government to "perfect" our country, we became that which defeated our former enemy and fellow superpower. And the choice now is to continue down that path (socialism/communism/marxism/etc.) or radically change how we do business.
Well Patrick, nobody likes government until he needs it's help. Whether being screwed by an insurance company or a million other reasons. The way health care is administered to millions of people in this country is a screw job. Every year, those of us fortunate enoough to have employers that make health insurance available to employees have their premiums raised and benefits reduced. Or worse, as in the case of some of our blogging friends, have it taken away altogether. Single payer as I propose fixes this. Or as I like to colorfully say, pulls the penis.
And I know it's popular to bash the US postal Service. Always has. But of the billions of letters it delivers, better than 97% get to their intended destination in two or three days. Postal employees work round the clock. And they don't have cushy jobs either. They work their asses off. And have been doing so since Ben Franklin was our first postmaster. I'd say the US Postal Service does a good job and has been for around 200 years. How's Enron doing? Or DHL?
Truth: It's not that I dislike government. I just don't want them to be the ONLY entity. It's been proven time and time again that they screw up, skim and grow too big for their britches. As in DHL, Enron and other private companies, we can sue them or close them down. But with government, once they "take over" there is NO choice. If they take over the health care, we can't sue. There is no recourse. That is extremely unfair. I see no reason we can't form another plan, like Medicare, but have our tax dollars pay for it and have some government over-site to that a situation like Enron doesn't happen. What's wrong with that? Again, private and government working together toward one common goal--to make the life of the American People better.
Truth - I'm all for "coming together" when there's an earthquake, flood, or terrorist attack.
But you're using this to advance a political agenda. What you're saying is "shut up and support whatever legislation Obama wants."
Look, if you like what Obama is proposing, fine, make your case. But don't just tell everyone else they have to "come together" and support it. That's not very democratic.
Just to clarify Tom, I don't support the plan President Obama supports. He's private and mandatory insurance with a public option for those that can't get it through employers or think public is better. I've pointed out several flaws in this and I didn't have to call anyone a nazi.
I've also agreed that modifications to the single payer plan I've proposed are welcome. I've been consistent on this. I rarely post outside the link list here so everything is out there.
If a private plan comes along that I believe is better than what I support, I'd support it. What's going on now is bad and getting worse.
Republicans have declared they call for unity only when they have the power. When they are in the minority, they will obstruct. It is their way or no way. And if it means Americans must suffer well so be it. They are standing on principle, the principle that they know best are the right and just ones, The REAL Americans.
And Real Americans fight all enemies foreign and domestic...
As to the insurance "debate", the Right has adopted the argument technique of The Red Face and Loud Voice because they know the uninsured and poor are inherently deficent. If they weren't they would be healthy and rich, it's their own fault.
Grung_e_Gene said "the Right has adopted the argument technique of The Red Face and Loud Voice"
This is rich. For eight years we listened the anti-war left scream in very loud voices that we on the right were murderers, that Bush was a murderer, to "Bushitler," "Chimpy McHitler" and a zillion other comparisons of Bush to Hitler. And we're supposed to take your complaints seriously?
Er, no.
What's happening is that you on the left are just getting a taste of your own medicine.
Er, no.
What's happening is that you on the left are just getting a taste of your own medicine.--Tom the Red Hunter
Some people would call that emulating a group that is admired. Or following the leaders.
And some would call it the "They did it too! nYAH, nYAH, nYAH" response, so popular in schoolyards everywhere.
Post a Comment