I would only be proud to support the Democrats if they loudly demanded Chimpeachment and withdrawal from Iraq.

Not gonna happen.

Regarding Healthcare, I want what THE REST OF THE MODERN WORLD HAS.

HEAVILY REGULATED SOCILIZED MEDICINE.

Anything less is a friggen cop out to the insurance Crooks and Liars.

Period.

I wish those links were ordered by how comprehensive, and detached from the insurance industry they are.

Its not about "junkfood" and "excercise bikes".

Cut the damn insurance middle men OUT and healthcare will become affordable!

To bad all the Candidates have an eye on the insurance lobby.

This just torques my arse.

I think that only Dennis Kucinich is supporting single payer health insurance, maybe also Gravel. The rest support subsidizing the health insurance companies, so I hear. The keyword here is "single payer". Forget about the broad brush of "National Health Insurance".

We saw in the Medicare Part D, the prescription plan, a plan to shift the costs from the patient to the taxpayers, without a plan to curtail the costs. Indeed, a motivator for the drug plan was to avoid locking up grandma for importing drugs from Canada. However, the result has the comptroller warning that medicare costs are an actuary's nightmare.

There are two things that need to happen in medical. One is single payer national health insurance. The other is to formulate policies where, when there is a conflict between the best interests of patients versus the best interests of shareholders, patients win out. Currently, shareholders win out. During the Reagan administration, medical research was shifted from the National Institutes of Health to private for-profit companies, often the pharmaceuticals companies. Now, 90% of research is done by these companies, with an emphasis of maintenance regimes with recurring cash flows instead of cures. And we're sitting around scratching our butts, wondering why there is double digit inflation in medicine.

Single payer will put a dent in that inflation.

Use the word "socialized" and people think we are becoming a Communist country. Then people also point out potential long waits in countries like the UK and Canada.

Lemme tell ya, these poeple must not have Kaiser. If you have a non-emergency procedure, you wait there as well. But the point is, emergency procedures are handled immediately and no one has to worry about bankruptcy from medical issues.

A system like the UK or Canada is the only way to go.

OK so how do we successfully introduce the term "Socialize" back into the dialog? And fuck capitalism and the horse it rode in on. Capitalism (such a sterilized form of the word "greed") has always recognized the threat and successfully convinced the general American community that socialism is the devil itself. Guess what: Ever heard the term projection makes perception?

To Silentpatriot--And how is the government going to pay for it ? Your government is broke. Try a new 21% a national tax,that will get you cured of any socialism illness.
It costs over $50,000 per person/per year in Ontario to fund the OHIP medical care. Just consider what gold plated health plan in USA could buy with that kind of dough.
What is needed--flood America with Medical schools.

With his vocal opposition to the expansion of the S-CHIP program to provide health care coverage for more of America's children, President Bush is returning to the same tried and true formula he first pioneered in Texas. That is, Bush initially fought the legislation on ideological grounds before caving to popular pressure and grudgingly accepting some version of the bill. Then, as with the Texas S-CHIP program, the Texas Patients Bill of Right and the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit, Bush claimed credit for it.

for the details, see:
"S-CHIP on Bush's Shoulder."

How about halvin the military budget. Tell Bush that it's time to put away the toys and be adults. No more candy for Dick, either.

George @ 16:

To Silentpatriot--And how is the government going to pay for it ? Your government is broke. Try a new 21% a national tax,that will get you cured of any socialism illness.
It costs over $50,000 per person/per year in Ontario to fund the OHIP medical care. Just consider what gold plated health plan in USA could buy with that kind of dough.
What is needed--flood America with Medical schools.

For starters, the warring could be stopped. It would be a win-win-win-all around.

And I seriously doubt your figure, unless a great part of the Ontarian population is seriously ill. That would mean everyone in Ontario, rich and poor alike would have an average of over $50,000 in taxes per year. and that would only cover medical...
"The Ontario Health Premium is to be collected by the income tax system, and is effective July 1, 2004. The premium is based on taxable income, and ranges from no premium for those with taxable incomes under $20,000 to an annual premium of $900 for those with incomes over $200,000 in 2005 and later tax years. Ontario joins Alberta and British Columbia as the only provinces charging premiums to individuals for health insurance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Health_Insurance_Plan

The figure I saw GWB through out (When asked why the rest of the country couldn't have the same care as members of Congress was that that "It'd be too 'spensive. It'd cost about $7,000 per year per person.

And we have plenty of med schools and doctors here, thanks

How are you going to pay for healthcare WITHOUT national tax support? Can't be done.

In 1963, the rich paid 91% tax on income. That has gone down under every republican to where it is now at about 36%

Just take the tax rate for the rich HALFWAY back up to where it was in 1963 and not only do you have enough for Healthcare, but also Socialized Education!

However, let me ask you, how does every other "less rich" modern nation on earth pay for Socialized Medicine and we can't??

Preytell.

nochickenhawk @ 23:

Frankly they didn't stand tall on this important issue. Hillary, Obama, Edwards are all on the health care industry's payroll.

I agree.

We have been SOLD OUT!

I'm a Democrat and I'll vote Democrat. However, every Democratic proposal continues insurance companies. They are the prime problem -- so, who is BS who? Or, is it whom is BS whom?

By the way, it wouldn't be socialized medicine, it would be federalized single payer medicine.

I just have to say this, cuz it is really bugging me- I am a nurse that has researched this closely- it is 47 Million to 49 Million in all the latest research, 9 million of which is children and 27 Million is suposedly women...I hate to nitpick- bit since I am a member of this HUGE Club- it needs to be put correctly- and it grows monthly...It is a crisis and needs to be treated as such- and note they did not let Kucinich talk on this issue....Edwards did good...most answered well on this issue- but AC and CNN waited until the debate was almost over 1 hr and 45 min into it- and then 4 minutes in the issue Anderson tried to switch to Immigration- I was horrified- they took THE issue they say they got the most vids on and Put at the bottem of the pile ???WT ???and Iraq ? they put that on late too...and Impeachment never even hit the tarmac....CNN has been drinking the Koolaid- how sad....ya know those 49 million Uninsured do watch CNN- bet they didn't think of that.....we should all write CNN and hold them accountable...they are not helping Americans by sidepeddling OUR issues: Iraq, Health , Economy....

The "debate" was not.
Horrible news: I looked up the term on Your Dictionary.com (like the map of "Your Village" in the 60's TV series The Prisoner) and the concept of argument back and forth between opposing views based on hypothesis is not included in any of the multiple definitions.

So a whole new generation of idiots is being bred for World Federation Wrestling style, Judge Judy interruption of thoughts. Are you for us or against us?

This is no less than a tactical strike against Democrats by the Middle Eastern wing of CNN, see: ownership

They succeeded in making Democrats appear to flounder impotently while Bush appears to speak carefully, thoughtfully....Images, not reality, mind you.

Silentpatriot,

You should not be proud of anything. Pride implies a job well done and feeling happy that one has succeeded in doing something that either progresses humanity or changes it a new way that was not thought of before.

Alas, in this particular circumstance, there is nothing present to warrant any pride of oneself, especially if you advocate theft for the purpose of providing services you personally think could be beneficial to the nation. You know what? We ARE truly a sick nation, and the sickness is not a lack of socialized healthcare. No, it is that people have come to believe and take for granted that theft can be good if only the justifications for it's existence can be agreed upon by enough people in order to create an unstoppable majority that exploits and feeds off of the minority. If this can be done, then any and all opposition to it will appear to be heretical, evil, or bad for the nation.

The root of this problem lies in what your perception of good governance is all about. You really think that the notion of public healthcare is a "gift" from government, and that anyone who should stand up and show what its true nature is all about, are nothing but irrelevant hacks who could not possibly know what's best for the nation.

It seems that what you don't want to accept is the fact that it is NOT a valid argument to merely suggest that since other western nations have socialized healthcare, the US should have it too. This implies that social healthcare is a GOOD thing. You are taking for granted the fact that socialized healthcare is the base reference for comparison between nations. You are taking socialized healthcare as the standard in which other countries (such as the US) need to follow, because a lack of socialized healthcare is, by your standards, SUB-standard. Of course if you frame any debate this way you are setting up a rhetorical question and/or straw man which is a smoke-screen for your real intents, which is to stifle private profit-making. Socialized healthcare is merely your means to achieve those ends. For example, if country A has socialized bread manufacturing, and country B does not, and socialized bread making is the arbitrary standard, then of course country B is evil and contemptuous.

Silentpatriot, you don't really care for the sick and dying, because if you did then you would not be wasting your time posting comments on political blogs, you would be out in the streets doing EVERYTHING you can to help the needy and sick by donating some of your own money to help them. What's that? You don't donate to the sick? Oh, I get it, you only want to spend OTHER people's money on healthcare? Yup, typical political hackery at its best. You are not helping the sick (yes, this is an assumption, but a reasonable one), you are merely talking and trying to stop profit making. THAT is your realy goal, your real target, so don't pretend to be all moral for supporting socialized healthcare. You are being dishonest. You and the rest of C&L always allude to the notion that if Bush wants to fight a war in Iraq, then maybe HE should go to Iraq and fight himself. I'm sure you'll agree with this right? Well, if you agree with this, then as a socialized healthcare supporter, you should be more than happy to donate some of your dollars to healthcare, like a good sumaritan. What's that? You only want the "rich" to donate? Oh, and where would they get the money for all this? Their capital? The very means by which all of our standards of living rise year after year? OK, so we should reduce the capital intensiveness of the US's economy (it is already extremely weak due to government deficits) in order to pay for it. This would have the inevitable effect of raising prices because production will slow down, and the poor who don't need healthcare will suffer MORE because then they will have even more hard times of making ends meet?

See, what the supporters of socialized healthcare don't understand is the economics behind it. The reason for this is that they don't think a price tag should be put on a human's life. Whether or not this true is irrelevant, because regardless of the healthcare system in place, economics is ALWAYS operating whether you want it to or not. Those who deny its existence are the ones who usually mess up an economy (FDR, Nixon, Reagan, Bush). Those who want things to be a certain way without considering the individual thoughts, actions, and perceptions of individual people ALWAYS create an unsustainable system that eventually goes bust.

You may clamour for socialized healthcare, you may get it. But don't be all "I didn't intend for THIS!" when the system goes kablooee, perhaps not for your kids, but their kids or their kids.

Single payer is the answer. The conservative wedge is that most big businesses would love to drop healthcare from their accounting. It would make US companies more competitive. Single payer is good for everyone except insurance companies.
No human endeavor is without problems.

No matter what we do we will complain. It is our nature to want things to improve.

I wish people who say "The scariest words are:`I'm from the government and I'm here to help' " would stop seeking office just to prove it.

No one wants big government until they need it... and then they demand it.
Healthcare is too essential to be left to what the market will bear. It's not widgets, take them or leave them. For profit healthcare is like extortion. Pay or die.

While Silent Patriot masturbates the Dem's for talking about giving money to the insurance companies because health care is a hot issue.
Private Freedom just wasted minutes of my life saying absolutely nothing at all.
No wonder the US remains such backward shithole.

[Private Freedom has not made it a secret that he is in Canada-Sitemonitor]

"Silentpatriot, you don’t really care for the sick and dying, because if you did then you would not be wasting your time posting comments on political blogs, you would be out in the streets doing EVERYTHING you can"

Shut up, Private Freedom. You know damn well that you can care about sick people but still work in other areas. I never want to see animals harmed, but I don't work as a vet or anything related to animals. Are you saying that I must not care for animals simply because I don't devote my life to them?

You are a sad, idiot. Sound like a Republican troll if you ask me.

Dennis Kucinich was desperately trying to get Cooper to call on him to answer on health care. He was ignored. Kinda proves Michael Moore's criticism of CNN for looking out for their advertisers best interests, doesn't it?

But will the Democrats actually do anything about it? I can hear their excuses now for not doing it. The same ones we've heard for 40 years.

Juba @ 40:

While Silent Patriot masturbates the Dem's for talking about giving money to the insurance companies because health care is a hot issue.
Private Freedom just wasted minutes of my life saying absolutely nothing at all.
No wonder the US remains such backward shithole.

[Private Freedom has not made it a secret that he is in Canada-Sitemonitor]

My bad if what you say is true, so let me rephrase that-No wonder the World remains such a shithole.

Was it just me, or Anderson Cooper gave Obama, Edwards, and Clinton all the time they wanted? He practically told Dodds to shut up at one point. And he was saying "yeah, yeah" to Kucinich during his answers! WTF is that??

"you're either with the dems or against them."

there's a healthy meme.

but their debate was sick and why does cnn get to dictate these formats and idiot moderators?

Green Machine @ 39:

Silent, you're kidding right?
Give me a HUGE break! The only candidate who will take the health care system away from the for-profit scamming insurance and drug companies is Kucinich. All the others will keep what we have, with very few changes.
They are an embarrassment.
I'm not proud one bit to be a Democrat, but of course I'll vote for one in '08. That's how sad it all is.

That's what I was going to say...

I'm sorry but you're proud to support them because of what they're saying? Kucinich is the only candidate advocating not for profit health care and I believe we could trust him to act on it as well. The others? I'm unconvinced. Kucinich is the only one of them I would cast a vote for and we all know he will never be on the ballot.

Michael Moore tells the Dems that on health care they better grow a spine!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn8gS4phiKI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edaily...

uh, hello? crooks and liars are you there?

dodd, kucinich, richardson, et al, got about 30 seconds to respond, and edwards, clinton and obama got about 2 to 3 minutes!

When the hell are all these people in the media and politics going to finally realize that health insurance is not health care? Why can't we have the debate on the basis that we need health care, not welfare for insurance companies. Hell, that's like legislating guaranteed protection money to the Mob instead of just doing the job of making the streets safer. Maybe you'll be safer and maybe they'll decide you're not covered and rob you anyway.

I think no matter which Dem candidate gets the nomination and wins the presidency. His or Her health care plan will be on the table. You have to know that studying all the other countries health systems and trying to apply the good from each and such is going to be studied extensively.

So the system may not end up like an initial platform plan. But you can tell by the willingness of the candidates to give us their favorable perspectives on health care and work from there.

There is no Republican health care plan...................................

I didn't hear any of them say my health care plan or the highway. I heard the willingness to sign such legislation instead of vetoing. And you can count on a larger portion of your premium to pay for lobbyists and buy all republicans they can. Be prepared to do something and start by keeping the national debate going and going strong. Its our voice that must be heard over the health industries.

They are making their plan a piece of the tactical landscape of running for president. They need to provide healthcare. They arent Madgellan on this boat. They are passengers. They arent inventing of discovering anything. If anything, they are pandering and differentiating - not all, but surely most.

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

They wont support it because it isnt theirs.

The insurance premiums that are being paid RIGHT NOW, by over expensive policies could be lowered, to provide for every single person in the US. Those premiums are nothing to sneeze at. Just take it from the Insurance companies and institute it for the single payer, those without insurance will be given treatment paid for by the premiums across the US.

It's a start. It's a solution. It's WAY OVER DUE!

Insurance for EVERYONE IS A MUST HAVE.

Before deciding you all need to check up on how much these candidates are currently getting in contributions from insurance and pharma.
The more tey are getting the less likely you will see meaningingful reform.

NewNameAcquired @ 42:

"You know damn well that you can care about sick people but still work in other areas."

Yes, I believe that is true. But you have to be careful in what you mean by "care". It is perfectly reasonable to give without any expectation of receiving. As busy as many of us are, it is also perfectly reasonable to want to help out those in need in the small way we can. None of this I dispute, nor do I have the proper right to try to stop.

Having said this, where I see a truly sinister idea at work is the notion that all that is required is to feel badly for those in need, and then use that feeling of sorrow to enact policies. It is HERE that I feel a loathing towards those who do not think everything through to its logical conclusions, or the full basis for action. In Silentpatriot's case, all that is required is to "feel" for the sick and dying. Thus, ANYTHING that takes away THIS particular pain is moral and should be without rebuttle. Those who say anything against this are evil, trolls, paid shills, etc...

I said this before, where people go wrong is the METHOD they use to solve the problem of the sick and dying. To me, it makes little or no sense to create an environment whereby it is OK to literally steal from people in order to save other's lives. This may sound trite, or cold, or ignoring the dying by protecting the "rich", but it's not. It affects us all. The reason it affects us all is because it makes people believe that stealing IS OK, as long as the justification is convincing. This utilitarian approach to solving problems is VERY risky, dangerous, and morally contemptible. It prevents people from isolating and stopping any and all violence towards one another, which is a worthy goal, MORE worthy than only saving the sick at the expense of others.

"I never want to see animals harmed, but I don’t work as a vet or anything related to animals. Are you saying that I must not care for animals simply because I don’t devote my life to them?"

No. I am not saying that. Your example is fallacious because you assume that NOT doing something, i.e. NOT harming animals, is the same as DOING something, i.e. taking away people's property in order to pay for other's sickness. You may think you are being moral and nice, but this idea that it is OK to take from some to give to others makes people HATE each other. It makes people feel animosity towards others because what they see is their own property being taken away by some people and given to others who may or may not willingly have a healthy lifestyle. For example, I do not want to pay for the treatment of someone who smokes cigarettes and gets cancer, I do not want to pay for the treatment of those who eat bean burritos for breakfast and gets a heart attack, I do not want to pay for peoplee's unhealthy lifestyles, because by doing so our society has sanctioned unhealthy lifestyles. This society says to people "it's OK to treat yourself like crap, because that is the standard our society is holding up HIGHER than healthy lifestyles." This is so very true. We should NOT judge a society by how well the unhealthy are treated, we should judge a society by how well the HEALTHY are being treated.

"You are a sad, idiot. Sound like a Republican troll if you ask me."

It sounds like this to you because you are stuck in political think whereby everyone MUST belong to one party or the other in order to be heard or be valid. That's your problem not mine.

Silientpatriot @ 60:

"Is universal health care the solution to all of America’s problems? Of course not."

WOW. Just WOW. I cannot for the life of me figure out what the heck it is you are advocating. Which is it? There is no fence sitting on this issue, because there are two sides to this issue. Michael Moore wants to have universal healthcare, I do not. I think you are afraid of being more forthright in your beliefs, because I get the feeling that you don't want to go one way or the other in order to avoid confrontation. You seem to want to just go blah blah blah, and hopefully your beloved politicians will actually DO what you really want to do, and that is to steal from people in order to solve your dilemma, which is profit-making. If you were the "decider", and you were told you could make the healthcare system ANY way you wanted, what would you do? THAT is how you can figure out just what it is that is in your head.

"Is it a noble endeavor to pledge to help give coverage to the uninsured — most of which are either children, the poor, or the elderly? I believe it is."

I believe it is not. ACTIONS are what determines humanity. ACTIONS are what is required to put one's own ideas into reality. Merely thinking it, talking about it, wanting it, is not enough. It is only the first step. The most important part is HOW you go about your ideas and HOW your ideas lead to action by others. If your ideas are the start of something truly evil, I must say no to you, because then I would be sanctioning the evils that result from these unfinished, repugnant thoughts. I believe it is this reason you think I am cold or trollish. You seem to think that I am being to harsh, when all you are doing is being "nice". Well, my friend, history has shown that if we don't nip things in the bud at the start, there is no reason to stop there.

For example, your ideas lead to socialized healthcare. Fine. You have succeeded in advocating theft for whatever cause. Then, after a few years, I come along and say, HEY, why can't we increase taxes or government spending to pay for wappity-splash? If I can convince enough people that my program is moral, then there is nothing there to stop me, because theft is OK. THIS is why the US government is so big nowadays. It is the implicit agreement that theft and plunder of some people is OK, as long as the majority thinks it is OK. Rights are violated, people get angry and feel animosity towards their fellow man. You think I am right-wing? Hah! I am against them just as much as the left, because BOTH sides agree with YOUR ideology!! I want to ADVANCE society by stopping any and all forms of violence, such that our world is safe for everyone, and everyone is free from violence! THIS shuold be the goal of everyone on Earth, NOT how to save some people by sacrificing others.

"I don’t care about the sick and dying? Why? Because I lend my political support to those who run on a platform of helping those very same sick and dying?"

YES. NOW you got it. Keep going with those thoughts and you will see that your ideas ARE distructive. Don't think, however, that the alternative is right-wing shite. There is a THIRD alternative.

"It appears to me that those who want to maintain the current system — e.g. you — are the ones who could care less about the plight of the underprivileged."

On the contrary, I DON'T want to keep the status quo, where did you get that idea? I DO think the current system is bad. Of course, the solution in my mind is to allow ANYONE to treat people for their sicknesses. It is absolutely destructive for our society to say that only SOME people are "allowed" to do this or that, at the threat of violence or imprisonment if they dissent. For example, if there lives a man on my street who has a way of curing say, athlete's foot, and I allow him to cure me, our current system will put that man in jail because he doesn't have a government sanctioned licence. Our society is saying that the cure is NOT the most important thing! Can't you see that? You accuse ME of not caring for the sick, when I do! I WANT the sick to be cured by all of us, not just some!

This destructive mentality is the reason marijuana is illegal, even though it stops the pain of people with glaucoma. How can you sit there and say that our society is working well if we say no, taking away your pain is NOT enough, you have ot do things OUR way before your pain is important. THIS way of thinking makes me want to scream at the mountaintops and denounce humanity, although there is still good in us, we are just lost. Our race is lost because the whole world is coming together really fast and people are losing their sense of self, because their sense is one of collectivity and group belonging. Since these groups are coming together, we as a race must realize that we are all still individuals and are valued highly.

"Your economic “argument” is laughable."

It may be laughable to you, but your laughing is also the laughing of those who want to destroy economics, and thus the only source of our well-being.

"Of course the specifics of how we pay for such a system is an important factor — probably the most important factor — but that doesn’t mean it’s not feasible."

Right. As long as its feasible, then it is OK. Ya, good logic.

"It’s about shifting priorities"

Away from what exactly?

"I would be more than happy to “donate” some of my tax dollars to help the 10 million+ uninsured children get the proper medical treatment they need."

Again, you think the mere mention of things is enough to be moral. It is how you ACT that is important.

"Evidently 2/3 of Americans agree with me as well."

So if enough people believe that the killing of cheating wives is OK, then it is moral? You need to rethink how things become important in society.

"Then again, I guess since we don’t all volunteer at medical clinics every day — who needs a paying job, right? — we really don’t care about the well-being of our fellow citizens."

So do you care or don't you care? Why are you asking me?

"You sure are a bitter person. Or a right-wing troll."

Tough love hurts.

Watch out, Randroid in the room.

Regarding economy of govt. healthcare:

Please try to remember that nation states can and do calculate profit on projects in a different way than private companies. For a private companies, it is easy, the bottom line on their yearly review is what they earn. The direct income minus the cost is their income on products.
Now, governments get a lot of bonuses to their "profits", namely a part of the total increase of society as a whole, in this case, higher tax income, as people who get quickly treated, gets back to their jobs, creating more revenue for themselves/companies, thus more taxes.
There is a reason why governements improve roads, even though the existing ones do work. Its to reduce the time spent in, say traffic jams and such, which increases time available to spend on productive work, which benefits the nation as a whole.
For some reason, people tend to scream of the purely $$ effect, while ignoring the bigger picture involved.

As for those who start pulling governmental food production into this, the comparison is silly, how many go bankrupt in the US in order to buy food?

Should have made a longer post, but need to work.

Norse @ 77:

"Please try to remember that nation states can and do calculate profit on projects in a different way than private companies."

Norse, PLEASE PLEASE do not make such statements. Please try to remember? By saying this, you have implicitly declared that it is true, and that it is up to us to learn it. BS! This notion that nation states can somehow make economic "calculations" is completely absurd. Governments have NO IDEA how to calculate, because the basis for economic calculation lies within individual's perceptions, wants, and needs. Prices are formed by the collective actions of individuals making individual choices. Governments CANNOT calculate because they LACK the necessary knowledge, i.e. individual choices of everyone in the country (or economic system). If government economic calculation worked, then the USSR would have worked. It failed because resources could not be allocated the most efficiently and millions died as a result. It is PROOF that it does not work. Sadly, this collosal failure still doesn't deter some people.

"For a private companies, it is easy, the bottom line on their yearly review is what they earn. The direct income minus the cost is their income on products."

Haha, dude, if it were THAT easy then everyone on Earth would be a multi-millionaire. It is waaaay harder than that, but what you said about HOW it is calculated is true.

"Now, governments get a lot of bonuses to their “profits”, namely a part of the total increase of society as a whole,"

Bonuses? What bonuses? Profits? What profits?

"...in this case, higher tax income"

Which increases aggregate profits because it takes away funds from companies that would have invested it, raising aggregate costs and thus lowering profits. Super high profits in an economy is a sign of weakness and retrogression, not progress.

"...as people who get quickly treated, gets back to their jobs, creating more revenue for themselves/companies, thus more taxes."

Woah, back it up. This statement is based from the incorrect "multiplier effect". Jobs do not create revenue, selling products do. Wages, which you are alleging is the source of revenues, actually comes out of capital, which must be SAVED first before it can be paid. Capital can only be increased if the very things that operate AGAINST it are reduced or eliminated, such as government budget deficits, taxes, and inflation. By merely increasing revenues by government expenditure, you are not making us better off, because money spent on consumer's goods is equivalently NOT spent on capital goods. It is true that revenues for consumer's goods for the most part come from wages, but wages themselves come from capital. Also, the majority of spending in an economy doesn't even go to consumer's goods. The overwhelming majority of spending in an economy goes to the buying and selling of capital goods, i.e. productive expenditures, NOT consumption. The reason this often gets missed is due to the government's method of national accounting, which ignores the gross investments made and only focuses on the "net" investments made. This amount, however, is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

"There is a reason why governements improve roads, even though the existing ones do work. Its to reduce the time spent in, say traffic jams and such, which increases time available to spend on productive work, which benefits the nation as a whole."

Ahhh, the typical argument used to support government spending. It is not only not destructive, but is allegedly a BENEFIT. Right? Wrong. Privately owned roads would work BETTER than public ones. Most people cannot even imagine such a thing to exist, so they assume it is impossible.

"For some reason, people tend to scream of the purely $$ effect, while ignoring the bigger picture involved."

What "bigger picture" are you talking about? Name it, and I will show you how it is fallacious.

"As for those who start pulling governmental food production into this, the comparison is silly, how many go bankrupt in the US in order to buy food?"

The poor ARE poor because prices rise every year due to government interference in the economy (via the Federal Reserve's expansion of the money supply). Advocating for more will only make the problem worse.

@MamaLynn

Beautifully said and right on target. You've gotten to the heart of the matter.

@MamaLynn

Sorry about the double post, but your heartfelt words and situation really got to me in a way most posts don't. We do need to reclaim our humanity and seeing each other as persons, not rich and poor, black and white, etc.

Many years ago, I hitchhiked across the United States, literally putting myself at the mercy of complete strangers. I was amazed and humbled by the good will I experienced from so many people, all of them middle class at the most. Folks who were working hard just to make ends meet would bring me into their homes and even feed me, after just an hour or two of talking together in their car. I will never forget their kindness and decency. They and all the other folks who struggle to get by deserve health care because they are human beings, and we have obligations to all the members of our society.

@ sciguy

Thanks for the props. I think that a huge part of the problem, and one of the reasons SiCKO is doing so well, is the personal stories aren't getting heard. So much of the upper class can't relate to "people like us". My sister is a prime example. We were on a road trip last year and stopped for gas. While inside paying for it the woman ahead of her in line was flipping out because she just realized she had driven for four hours and left her purse at home with all her money, credit cards, phone and was out of gas. My sister gave her $20 to get some food and a little gas so she could drive and meet her husband to get her purse back. This woman was well off, but in a bad situation. My sister has no sympathy whatsoever for my daughter's grandmother who had her purse stolen a few years ago with all of her identification in it, can't find anyone in the entire State of California who can find her marriage license and can't get an id to get a job. It is somehow all her fault because she is poor. She didn't choose this life, much like the woman didn't choose to leave her purse at home, but because my sister can see herself in one person and not another she feels it acceptable to give moeny to one and not the other, even though one can sit and wait for a few hours and have money while the other can sit and wait and get critisized for it. It is truly mind boggling the bubble these people live in. Particularly as my sister sees the situation I'm in and feels my pain, frustration and anger, but doesn't feel the same way for a stranger. Maybe I can just see myself being more a victim of circumstance than being stupid enough to drive four hours before realizing I'd forgotten my purse.

A question which does relate to this post, and perhaps ages me somewhat. Why does it seem that when a Dem is president people generallt treat each other with so much more respect?

I remember as a child when Reagan was in office, people didn't seem to give a rat's ass about each other, hence the rise of Yuppies and the "Me" generation. Hell, you can even watch the pop films of the era and see the greed reflected in it ("Greed is good"). The same went for Bush I, and think people had tired of it which is why he only lasted one term. When Clinton was in office there seemed to be so much more politeness in this society. Hell, even Mtv was about more activism and less Pimp my Ride and the disgusting displays of waste that is My Super Sweet 16. Do others not see this? This self-centeredness, selfishness, apathy toward human suffering? How many more stories do we have to hear of people standing by while an old man gets mugged, or stepping over the body of a stabbing victim, or ignoring someone dying on the floor of a hospital emergency room?

Personally I'm ready to leave. I'm sick of my sister telling me about all the people trying to get into this country. What about those of us who want out but are too poor to leave?

MamaLynn @ 88:

A question which does relate to this post, and perhaps ages me somewhat. Why does it seem that when a Dem is president people generallt treat each other with so much more respect?

I remember as a child when Reagan was in office, people didn't seem to give a rat's ass about each other, hence the rise of Yuppies and the "Me" generation. Hell, you can even watch the pop films of the era and see the greed reflected in it ("Greed is good"). The same went for Bush I, and think people had tired of it which is why he only lasted one term. When Clinton was in office there seemed to be so much more politeness in this society. Hell, even Mtv was about more activism and less Pimp my Ride and the disgusting displays of waste that is My Super Sweet 16. Do others not see this? This self-centeredness, selfishness, apathy toward human suffering? How many more stories do we have to hear of people standing by while an old man gets mugged, or stepping over the body of a stabbing victim, or ignoring someone dying on the floor of a hospital emergency room?

Personally I'm ready to leave. I'm sick of my sister telling me about all the people trying to get into this country. What about those of us who want out but are too poor to leave?

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
---John Kenneth Galbraith

The "Me" generation has been stupid enough to slit its own throat! They now find salmonella outbreaks in their food supply at an alarming rate because the rethugs have not expanded the budget for FDA inspectors to keep pace with all of the domestic and imported food coming on to the market. Ditto on the latest poison imported from China, whether its poisoned pet food or counter-fit toothpaste that contains anti-freeze!

If you ask the aging yupsters many will still insist that government is bad and privatization is always good, but they will continue to look like wide eyed sheep and ask how these things could be happening.

You can go to any doctors office waiting room and see almost as many pharmaceutical
reps with a box of "goodies" as you can see patients or turn on the TV and watch all of the latest commercials for the latest "wonder drug", yet they wonder why they pay more than double what the rest of the world pays for health care... and inferior health care at that when stacked up against those who have "single payer" universal health care coverage.

They never ask themselves who pays for all those commercials or give-aways to docs... ultimately it comes back to us.

Americans rant about off-shoring of jobs and the free traders spout off about the high costs of benefits here as a rationale for cutting them, but in truth many of the countries that we compete with have universal health care and companies don't have that costs eroding their profit margin. The high costs of health care in this country adds $1000 to every GM car sold as an example.

Many would try to use that rationale as an argument for doing away with benefits again, but they ignore the fact that one third of every health care dollar spent in this country goes to administrative costs associated with the paper work created by having 1500 private "for profit" health insurance companies. Studies by Harvard University, the GAO and CBO have all pointed out that this amounts to between $200 Billion and $350 Billion dollars annually... which is enough to supply every man woman and child in the US with "high quality" health care!

source:

http://www.pnhp.org/

Lastly... they groan about a tax increase, but fail to consider that their outrageous health insurance premiums that have doubled in the last six years and are projected to double again in the next ten years... go away!

We need a party that is comprised of the class it is supposed to represent. Democrats are just too far gone, they don’t represent our issues.

Some of us knew that 7 years ago.

The media has been saying 40m uninsured for over ten years. I am certain
it is a looooot more!

Several hours wait has been my experience in Toronto as well, for anything from food poisoning to a broken bone (twice). However, if your injuries are life threatening they do rush you right in.

Rick @ 73:

That's the first I've heard of a 10 minute wait in the emergency room. I live in Toronto, and have gone to emergency 4 times over the last 10 years. Each time it's taken at least 2 hours to see a doctor.

Lyon @ 45:

You know it's funny, I often read these comments about Canadian health care and the horror stories about people waiting in line... I've never had this experience. Sure, I have to wait a while if I go to see the doctor for some basic care but it's a small clinic serving a wide area. That's a consequence of geography, not the health care system. In an emergency room visit I've never waited longer than 10 minutes tops, certainly less than five if I was visably bleeding. I'm forced to wonder if the same people finding these "horror story" cases are the same people who cherry picked the Iraq data...

John @ 96:

Several hours wait has been my experience in Toronto as well, for anything from food poisoning to a broken bone (twice). However, if your injuries are life threatening they do rush you right in.

Rick @ 73:

That's the first I've heard of a 10 minute wait in the emergency room. I live in Toronto, and have gone to emergency 4 times over the last 10 years. Each time it's taken at least 2 hours to see a doctor.

Lyon @ 45:

You know it's funny, I often read these comments about Canadian health care and the horror stories about people waiting in line... I've never had this experience. Sure, I have to wait a while if I go to see the doctor for some basic care but it's a small clinic serving a wide area. That's a consequence of geography, not the health care system. In an emergency room visit I've never waited longer than 10 minutes tops, certainly less than five if I was visably bleeding. I'm forced to wonder if the same people finding these "horror story" cases are the same people who cherry picked the Iraq data...

More times than not, you are going to have long waits in emergency rooms. I have waited from 15 minutes up to 2.5 hours. The wait time has more to do with the number of people who just happen to show up at the emergency room around the same time more than it does with the type of healthcare system. If healthcare were more affordable, more people would probably make appointments with their doctors rather than wait until they are on their death beds so to speak. This would also cut down on the number visiting the emergency rooms because affordable healthcare encourages people to seek prevention.

[Deleted. Off topic. Again-Sitemonitor]

Private Freedom @ 95:

Real Cause @ 90:

"Every capitalist, especially small businessmen, with any sense of the profit system should get over the spin that it will cost more."

That ain't spin. You are not taking into account the higher costs that will arise due to higher taxes and/or higher inflation and/or higher government spending, all of which raises replacement costs and/or lowers profits. The fact that overall it may cost the patient less in terms of what the company pays is irrelevent, because you are taking the choice AWAY from those businesses. Many businesses will not be able to be as strong as they were if you make this a blanket solution. One size does NOT fit all.

---Actually if you take the cost of insuring employees away, yes I suppose I am taking the "choice" away, but that is something I don't think ever have been, I've also never heard of a company that wanted to be responsible for healthcare.

"It will make American businesses much more competitive with other western companies. By reducing their employee healthcare costs, it will improve the productivity and expand the workforce by stopping the disruptions that for-profit healthcare causes (bankruptcy, loss of work due to neglected health concerns, etc.)."

Hmmm...I think you may be onto something here. I like the connection to worker productivity. But I hesitate to fully agree with you here because there still exists the issue that some companies will be hurt while others are benefitted. Overall then, there would be no increase in health.

---No, some may be benefited more. Those with the greatest healthcare costs would increase their profitability the most, but all American companies would be more competitive globally. It's also a pretty flimsy reason to continue the system.

"Small business will have one of their greatest burdens lifted."

OK, HERE I disagree totally. Small businesses must reinvest their profits over a rather long period of time in order to grow and be competitive. I think it is actually THEY who will be the most hurt. This circumstance does not surprise me, because almost always those people whom the policies are designed to help actually hurt them, take for example minimum wage laws. They are supposed to help the poor, but it causes unemployment.

---Actually, no. Larger companies have a massive human resources department to manage the issue of healthcare and find the cheapest plans and often get bulk discounts by insuring thousands of workers at a time. The really big companies combine the workers from their various incorporations. It is the small companies that are hit the hardest. Seriously there are a lot a numbers for this. Percentage of gross spent on healthcare is much higher for small rather than large businesses. I'm surprised you are even making this argument.

"Workers won’t have to be in fear that if they try to unionize, stand up for their rights, complain about inappropriate behavior by their employers, that they will be putting their health in jeopardy."

OK now your losing it..you raised an interesting point, then fell back on talking points about worker rights, etc...worker rights are believed to be at risk because of people's (mistaken) belief in the Marxian exploitation theory. This theory has been refuted, so there is nothing to worry about when it comes to worker "rights", just as there is nothing on the part of employers to fear workers in the name of "employer rights".

---As an unemployed person, fired for trying to unionize the fortune 500 retailer where I was a clerk, your statement is rather odious. The interest of a business is profit, not it's employees. Seriously, 'there is nothing to worry about when it comes to worker "rights"' maybe you don't know this but hundreds of people have died for those things you are calling "worker rights". I want a voice in my company, my boss doesn't want that, yes, in the US and Canada people don't get killed for that anymore, but only because of the struggle that has occurred. In many other countries people are dying because they are being exployted by sweatshop, unsafe and slave labor conditions, I guess no one told then that the theory has been refuted.

"The Democratic party either doesn’t understand this or it is not in their interest to provide a better system cuz they’ll lose their financial patrons."

The democrats do not understand how to fix things for the same reason the GOP doesn't know. Both of them don't understand how much better it could be if millions of people were involved in the decision-making, rather than a small group in Washington. The GOP wants the broken status quo to continue, the dems want to have more control over the healthcare industry. Both of them are flat out wrong and cannot fix it, because they both think they should "act" in our best interests.

"We need a party that is comprised of the class it is supposed to represent. Democrats are just too far gone, they don’t represent our issues."

Unfortunately to a large extent they do. Same thing for the GOP.

---Do you mean many people vote democrat or republican even though it is not in their interest? I agree. My point is to break with them.