9 comments

Add a comment…

Sign in

prestine

Your email address

Check!

invalid email

(thinking…)

Reset

or sign in with

• 
• 

UserVoice password

Forgot password?

Create a password

Your name

I agree to the terms of service

You'll receive a confirmation email with a link to create a password (optional).

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

Post comment Submitting...

• DEMOCRATZoORG commented  ·  Jun 03, 2009  ·  Delete

  The Liberal Democratic Party of the United States functions as a progressive legislative political party.

  We do not run candidates for office. We usually support candidates of the Democratic party of the United States.

  We do not handle money and we do not charge money for membership and we do not raise money.

  So you can join our party and still remain a a member of the Democratic, Green, Labor, or other progressive party you belong to.

  Instead we create referenda on legislation by boycott petitions where we target the companies which sell consumer products and associate themselves with conservatives. We demand that these company CEOs get the legislation that we want and until that happens our members send letters to these companies indicating we will boycott them.

  Why do we use boycotts? Well I hope if Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez, or Mohandas Gandhi appeared alive today that they would advocate boycotts of the friends of those who oppose our legislation, in a climate where those who donate money to office holders exercise too much influence over legislation.

  Please sign these petitions on single payer health care.

  http://bit.ly/single_payer_baucus

  http://bit.ly/single_payer

  Also sign these petitions.

  http://bit.ly/EFCA

  http://bit.ly/10_an_hour_min_wage

  http://bit.ly/norm_coleman_concede

  http://bit.ly/women_freedom_of_choice_act

• Sara Rogers commented  ·  May 21, 2009  ·  Delete

  If a public option is more "politically feasible" than single payer then it's only because it hasn't done its job to ensure adequate cost containment. Cost containment means someone loses money, and the powerful lobbyists don't want to lose money, so anything they support by definition doesn't work.

  There's no free lunch, we have to face the political obstacles to effective cost containment. That's why single payer is MORE politically feasible - at least it's simple to understand and has a clear message. Also most of it's savigns come from the insurance industry which means we can keep doctors, hospitals, employers and consumers whole. Only one big loser, one big fight; instead of many losers and many big fights.

• hoi polloi commented  ·  May 21, 2009  ·  Delete

  Without a public option, I don't see how reform happens. Only a public option will keep private insurers honest on cost, coverage and inclusion. If we don't have the option of going with public option, private insurers will continue to function as they do today.

• Tom Fletcher commented  ·  May 21, 2009  ·  Delete

  I am by no means an expert in the details of healthcare reform, but have a comment. Ultimately, a single-payer system would seem to make the most sense. However, realtistically, what can expect to get. A public option that has some teeth is likely the only possibility, and even then there is a real danger that this plan will be so watered down as to be an option in name only. The proposed "compromise" plans for a public option take the teeth out of any reform. I ahve also heard that the Senate is considering postponing the institution of any public option, to wait and see whether the insurance companies are willing to change their practices. More delays in other words. Our gutless Congress will try to kick the can down the road so that they won't have to take responsibility. It is up to ordinary citizens to turn up the heat to get them to act, and if they don't hold them responsible and vote them out ASAP.

• Rick Staggenborg, MD commented  ·  May 21, 2009  ·  Delete

  I second all the comments above. The public option is a smokescreen for another huge taxpayer bailout to a failing industry, private health insurers. The main reason SP is off the table is that Senate Finance chairman has some big debts to pay the corporate health care lobbyists who shelled out 1.65 million dollars between 2003 and 2008 to buy his seat, his soul and his vote. The good news is that he is already identified as public enemy number one by PDA. If we can find an SP supporter in Montana, I have promised PDA's national coordinator a $200 kickoff and $100/month from the time of the announcement until the election in 2014. That gives us pleanty of time to collect from other donors for his opponent's war chest. Who else is willing to put their money where PDA's mouth is?

• elliot horowitz commented  ·  May 20, 2009  ·  Delete

  A Single-Payer plan is what should be enacted for the People of this Nation, as it is the best, most cost-effective way to go. It's worth fighting for, and fighting hard.
  This is what we want, but what we can ACCEPT is a plan with a REAL Public Option, i.e., an affordable plan for all, and one that provides good quality care.
  Please help us to achieve at least this modest result as it is a critical need for We the People. The best way to help us is to vote AGAINST any proposal that falls short of the basic requirement.
  By turning down a bad plan, we retain our Power. If we accept it, we'll be stuck with the same horrible system until it ends up breaking us. It would be short-sighted and foolish, and in the long run, would do more harm than good.
  Though Single Payer would almost certainly be defeated now, having it "on the table" is useful because: 1) It gives us room to compromise, and still get a "good-enough" plan through. And, 2) If we reject a bad plan, Single Payer remains on the table, and the American people will not be too happy with their Representatives choosing to represent Insurance companies, HMOs, etc., instead of them.
  Our power will grow (as we ARE committed) and Single Payer will STILL be on the table.

• mitchellhirsch commented  ·  May 20, 2009  ·  Delete

  To further inform on the specifics of the promised and essential "public option", as Robert Reich wrote May 18 on his blog, in the Senate moves are being made in closed Finance Committee sessions to take the Medicare-like public plan off the table, substituting one of three of the following:

  "One would create a public insurance plan run by multiple regional third-party administrators. In other words, the putative "public plan" would be broken into little pieces, none of which could exert much bargaining leverage on Big Pharma and Big Insurance. These pieces would also be so decentralized that the drug companies and private insurers could easily bully (or bribe) regional third-party administrators.

  Another approach now being considered in the Senate would have states create their own insurance plans. That's even worse: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are used to buying off state legislators and officials. They'd just continue their current practices.

  A third option is to create a public plan that pays for itself and, according to the office of Senator Charles Schumer, who came up with it, "adheres to private-insurance rules." But adhering to private insurance rules is exactly what the public plan is not supposed to do. How can it possibly discipline private insurers and get good deals from drug companies and medical providers if it adheres to the same rules that private insurers have wangled?"

  These are not good policy alternatives -- they are, simply, political maneuvers meant to circumvent the clear need for a single public plan option.

• Rich Austin commented  ·  May 20, 2009  ·  Delete

  Having been around the block a time or two, I recognize a three-card Monte scam when I see one. That, dear friends, is what a so-called “public-option” is…a scam. Single-payer is the solution to our health care crisis. “Building on what is currently in place” is what has been happening for forty years! A “public option” builds on what is already in place. If you like what Congress has done to us over these past forty years, you’ll love a “public option”.

  So here is the real question: If an overwhelming majority of Americans support enacting a national single-payer health care program, and ditto that for doctors, who is Congress representing?

  We need single-payer like HR 676 and S. 703. The call for a “public option” is code for “retreat”!

• tatere commented  ·  May 20, 2009  ·  Delete

  There is an important corollary to this - not sure if it should be a separate question or not - and that's what qualifies as a "strong" public option. A public plan that cannot charge lower prices than private insurance, that cannot bargain with providers, that can't do the things that are the whole POINT of a public plan, is little better than none at all. Yet that "level playing field" nonsense seems to be the Democratic bargaining position. Wouldn't want to be unfair to the wee insurers, now would we...