Progressive Democrats of America Blog - Latest Comments in Clearing up some misconceptions

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

ashleystclaire — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:53:10 -0000

Obama and America’s banker Hu-Jintao

November 17, 2009 by politicalsnapshots.wordpres...

Obama and America’s banker Hu-Jintao

“As with any nation, America will approach China with a focus on our interests. And it is precisely for this reason that it is important to pursue pragmatic cooperation with China on issues of mutual concern — because no one nation can meet the challenges of the 21st century alone, and the United States and China will both be better off when we are able to meet them together. “

But, all nations are not of equal importance to the national interests of the U.S. Some are more equal than others. The United States of America needs China more than ever as China is the engine that is driving the stimulus package in the U.S. China is the largest holder of U.S. Treasuries to the tune of $800 billion dollars.

Times have changed. Even though, the U.S. is still the top dog, more than ever it needs the support and council of other nations (as in Iraq, Afghanistan, N. Korea, Iran, Somalia, etc). When it comes to the economy of the U.S. most of all, America needs China. America’s version of Capitalism, (anarcho-capitalism: an economic system that destroys government regulation of the economy, and creates anarchy within the global economic system) is a disaster.

Anarcho-Capitalism created an atmosphere where a criminal and an immoral greed were allowed to grow and create havoc within the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy was on the verge of collapse. The U.S. government was forced in to infusing billions of dollars in to the economy to save the day. For this, the support of China to jump start the economy of the U.S. was exceptionally critical.

President Obama comprehends China’s decisive role in saving America’s economy. His ambitious commitment to strengthening the U.S. economy has no choice but to cooperate with China. The Chinese on their part need a strong U.S. economy, as it is their lucrative market.

Finally, what is humorous in all this, is the fact that the Chinese are lecturing to America, to save more, to reduce its deficits, and not to continuously print the dollar.

Professor Mekonen Haddis.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

vicmaraz — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:39:09 -0000

Kucinich himself has stated that he would vote for an otherwise bad health reform bill as long as his amendment was retained. Canada's single payer system started out province by province, and it appears that it would have to proceed state by state here in the US.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

montyadams — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:26:04 -0000

My representatives are for Universal Health Care, and I have sent numerous e-mails to my representatives recently on this issue. The problem is that representatives in other jurisdictions don't seem to get it right. What can I do?

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

lizgear — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:36:44 -0000

Re. Opt-In/Opt-Out and Triggers. Vote for these and I will vote to opt YOU out. These provisions make passage of "Health Care Reform" an empty promise. I still won't be able to afford it. I will still go bankrupt trying to pay what insurance doesn't. Just because health insurers have to offer a policy if you have a preexisting condition doesn't mean they have to offer one you can afford. Some Democratic representatives and spokes people seem to thing that simply passing a bill called Health Care Reform will be enough to guarantee them votes. I'm a 3rd generation Democrat and I WILL opt out my vote and money and organize to get others to do so if you think we are that stupid.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

ronweiner — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:32:02 -0000

CandiToni is exactly right! Until we make a more concerted effort to achieve the same benefits as those afforded our representatives (how soon they forget, in their haste to cash in their corporate contributions), we will remain in a trick bag of our own designing. We need to speak with one LOUD voice, but such organizing seems beyond our time and energies.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

CandiToni — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:48:29 -0000

Change is the only option with regard to Health Care, the system is broken, corrupt and quality of delivery absent.
We are fighting us (those in Congress elected to serve us, but are concerned about the next election and contributions) from the Government system that provides a single payer for Congress, including pensions benefits for life that the tax payers are supporting. When a retired state worker in California is entitled to a $ 200,000 State pension, an average New York state pension is almost $ 100,000, and the banks and Wall Street are allowed to get bailed out because of no regulation and incompetence, I imagine quality Health Care at affordable rates isn't common sense. What happened to a Government of, by and for the people. I guess an unhealty society will die off soon enough because Washington and their Corporations know what's best.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

HA — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:32:37 -0000

If there's progress forward on healthcare for Americans in the bill, regardless of how much progress it is, PDA should support the bill. The only exception would be the ludicrous idea of fining Americans who can't currently afford insurance for not having it.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

billbianchi — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:19:05 -0000

Type your comment here.

Hi All:

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) offers a detailed definition at its website of what they call the Principles of the 'robust' public option.
See: http://cpc.grijalva.house.g...§ionTypeID=4

Their plan includes some good features that offer the possibility of replacing wholesale corporate control of health care with public influence. One feature in particular is note worthy, namely, the ‘robust’ PO should, "Be available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation." That’s definitely a step in the right direction.

However, the CPC proposal lacks one crucial provision. The public option, no matter how well devised, is still only part of a larger reform packaged that includes mandates and subsidies. As written, huge amounts of public money will flow to private insurance corporations. So to be a viable progressive reform, the robust plan must prohibit the use of public funds used to subsidize the purchase of private insurance. Public money should be use only to buy public services.

Also, does the CPC plan to offer their robust public option as an amendment to HR 3200 or as stand alone legislation? Either way, they must put it in writing on the floor of Congress. On the website, it's just a wish list.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

lmgoodmann — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:20:50 -0000

I wanted to point out, support for a mythical public option is a radical position change for PDA.

Norman Solomon articulated PDA's long standing position against Medical Apartheid here:
http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-07-24-11-48-13-news.php

I don't believe an organization can simultaneously work for Single Payer and the Public Option at the same time. Single Payer is based on the fact Health Care is a Human Right. The Public Option maintains that Health Care is a financial product. The Public Option does not guarantee health care for all. The public option does not provide equal treatment to everyone.

Highlights of PDA original position:

Even while straining to put forward a “public option” as some sort of stunning government intervention to level the healthcare playing field, media coverage rarely comes to terms with the situation that would actually remain under such a scenario.

How does “healthcare apartheid” strike you?

For the government to offer the public a multi-tier set of options for health insurance--in the words of the New York Times, “different levels of coverage” such as “basic, enhanced and premium”--is to imitate the approach of the corporate healthcare establishment.

After all, isn’t it implicit that the government plan’s “different levels of coverage,” offered to the public, would be based on ability to pay?

Missing from the dominant healthcare debate--not only along Pennsylvania Avenue but also along media row--is a principle that could be debated and should be debated.

In a few words: Healthcare is a human right.

And a human right should not be contingent on ability to pay. Nor should it be divided into “basic, enhanced and premium.”

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

Sally G — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:34:23 -0000

Paul Revere and Tom Degan: Well said! to Deborah S: the quote to which you refer may indeed sound like single-payer, but it is not available to anyone whose employer offers insurance unless the employee's contribution is >12% of his or her income, which seems to cut out most of the middle class.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

Sally G — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:29:05 -0000

I like PNHP's nonofficial/official stance: to "do the right thing", advocate for universal access to healthcare services, however it happens. I believe that the reform bills we've seen so far are destined to fail, and that we will still be working for single-payer in a few years after the reform crashes the economy. This is not a sprint, it is a marathon—hard to know at what milepost we are now, but still not in sight of 26.2, IMHO.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

Steven M. Hill — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:39:25 -0000

Simply stated: Single Payer, NOT FOR PROFIT, healthcare for every single man, woman, and child in this country.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

Paul Revere — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:40:05 -0000

We should support NOTHING BUT Medicare for All, and all bills MUST start 01/10/2010 or asap nearest that, bc PEOPLE ARE DYING (122/DAY or 45,000/yr) AND up to 1 MILLION ARE GOING BANKRUPT OR LOSING THEIR HOMES bc of inadequtae health care.. THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG, IMMORAL, UNACCEPTABLE & UNAMERICAN.. 15x the # who dies in 9/11 and 22x those lost in Katrina.. but this is ONGOING/IT MUST BE STOPPED!!

HERE'S THE KEY: ANY plan THAT DOESNT START RIGHT AWAY, with THE UNCOSNCIONABLE 4 YRS WAITING PERIOD MUST BE DEFEATED.. UNTIL & UNLESS BANK BAILOUTS & WAR FUNDING ARE DELAYED BY 4 YRS, DELAYING HEALTH CARE WHERE PEOPLE ARE DYING CANNOT BE AN OPTION.. EITHER START IT NOW, OR VOTE AGAINST ALL THOSE & OTHER PROGRAMS..KAMAKAZIE

W/THE LOSS OF LIFE & HOMES CAN WE SUPPORT MEDICARE FOR ALL NOW? YES WE CAN! COULD WE SUPPORT A ROBUST PUBLIC CHOICE OPTION? YES WE CAN! COULD WE SUPPORT A WATERED DOWN VERSION? NO WAY JOSE!

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

KarenBell37 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:36:14 -0000

About 7 billion people live on this planet. We all must SHARE its land, water, products, and wealth. Bullies of all kinds, whether in our poorest neighborhoods or our greediest corporate offices, must share their power, wealth and space to benefit everyone. Those who would grasp everything for themselves are playing a no-win game of Monopoly. If they take from everyone else, they destroy the very people who produce their wealth, and the walls come tumbling down. What sad, foolish people they are. We can start building a strong foundation of a healthy, vibrant world where all can share in its bounty. We can start by providing everyone with universal, quality health care. Even the bullies will benefit!

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

carolyost — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:50:44 -0000

Hurrah for PDA! Of course, you should fight for single-payer healthcare, and not get sidelined by the public option. That public option won't stand a chance as long as the insurance companies hang around. They'll make sure of that. And yes, we WILL get single-payer if we just keep plugging!

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

Name — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:44:22 -0000

The straw poll didn't include a question about mandates, and it's a crucial question when it comes to supporting the bill at all. We need to vociferously oppose measures that require Americans to purchase insurance from for-profit companies -- it's devastating.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

stevesiegel — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:26:43 -0000

We need a health care even if it is like the VA's. I don't see why we can not have that for everyone, pick one major hospital in area and make the the main Dr office; let each person have a free choice of Dr. if the need a specious than the other Dr can regimen one. simple and neat

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

Clif H. Anderson — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:48:16 -0000

It will have to be a super robust "public option" if you want me to consider it.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

marilynlater — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:09:03 -0000

It seems you must support a bill with a public option (unless it's co ops or opt out) as a step towards a medicare for all future. We know the congress must compromise to pass something.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

Nancy Watson — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:33:33 -0000

"Medicare For All," with expanded benefits from the current Medicare, is the only rational and civilized way to go in terms of efficiency, cost and providing all Americans with quality health care. Since it has become well known that the costs of employer-based health insurance puts businesses in the US at a disadvantage with other countries, I really don't understand why companies aren't pressing to get out from under this burden.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

jonathan gulden — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:38:44 -0000

Single-payer with strong independent oversight on costs, quality of service, is the only humane option...public option looks like just another welfare-for-the-wealthy opportunity for the insurane and pharmaceutical corporations.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

elizabethnola — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:36:49 -0000

The public option, if available to all is an acceptable start. Anything less, which I believe Obama and the Dem. leadership will try to give us in hopes of keeping corporate money flowing their way, is crap and should be shoved back into their faces.
Obama is on the left wing of the DLC, and as such is nearly worthless, no matter how beautiful his voice and how well crafted his speeches. He is the latest corporate merchandise foisted on us, their previous country(club) cowboy being such a total failure.
The Dem. Party, if they had any of their 60's character would be feasting on the situation facing our country today, each issue taylor made for progressive solutions, but instead these guys are largely corporate whores of some sort and seem to think that we should be happy eating Dem. vomit in place of Rep. feces.
This whole mess, from Wall Street fraud, needless wars, anti-American trade policies etc. will lead to our downfall, and that may be our only solution.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

Anne Gerster — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:36:22 -0000

Single payer healthcare is the best way to reduce healthcare costs! The insurance companies should not be making money on peoples good health. The practice of medicine should not be based on the business model. It is most of all an art and a science. It's purpose is caring and compassion. Healthcare providers should be paid for their services, not some interloping insurance company.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

elizabethnola — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:25:34 -0000

The public option, if available to all Americans, presently insured or not, is acceptable for the time being. The vaguely defined public option being reluctantly pushed by Dem. leaders, Obama included, will probably be limited in scope and not meant to be truly effective so as to keep insurance industry and pharma money flowing to them.
I do not trust Obama as he seems to be the latest corporate merchandise offered to Americans; the well spoken likeable intellectual in place of the total failure of their plain talking country(club) cowboy. I hope I'm wrong.

Re: Clearing up some misconceptions

Sarah K. Weinberg — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:20:08 -0000

I consider that a "robust public option" would have the following characteristics:
- Open to anyone who chooses it.
- Pays set rates, like Medicare + 5%, to physicians and hospitals (NOT negotiated rates).
- Premiums subsidized at the same rate as for private insurance.
- Requires participation by physicians and hospitals that participate in Medicare.
The first two criteria are critical, the 3rd and 4th less so.